NRA and today's compromise

Status
Not open for further replies.

F4GIB

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
1,165
Location
Midwest
Call today.

TELL NRA TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT COMPROMISING AWAY YOUR LIBERTY. CALL THEM AT 703-267-1200

NRA's Role?: ... The decision hinges on talks between Rep. John Dingell
(D-Mich.), a gun-rights advocate and bill co-sponsor, and the National
Rifle Association, the powerful gun lobby whose support is crucial to
the measure's survival
, House aides said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/ny-usguns215180678apr21,0,5832848.story
 
What compromise? The records are already supposed to be reported, but some states haven't been doing it. John

"This is the fourth time she has introduced the bill since 2002. It passed the House twice, but died in the Senate.

The bill would spread $250 million in grants to states to automate criminal records to report people barred from having guns to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

After three years, the bill would dock funds from states that failed to automate 60 percent of its records."
 
This IS NOT going to be the bill McCarthy and Schumer have been trying to pass.

Otherwise there would be no negotating between the NRA and Dingell. Sounds to me like the Democrats are trying to get an NRA acceptable version.

McCarthy's bill has already been introduced awhile ago so there is no reason for Dingell to talk to the NRA if the Dems wanted to bring up McCarthy's already introduced bill.


I suspect this will be a completely new bill.
 
I think that we sould hold off on any action until we have some facts. Unless someone has seen and read this bill (if so, please post it) we should just wait. IMHO, if the NRA is involved it will not be the same bill that McCarthy has introduced several times in the past and if McCarthy was trying to push the same old or even better (in her view) bill she would not have gotten the NRA involved.
 
It can't be the Our Lady of Peace Act as that bill has already been introduced with Dingell's support.

There must be some sticking points.
 
The article sounds like Dingell and the NRA are developing a new bill but maybe they are just tweaking McCarthy's proposal?

Dunno.
 
it has to do with recordkeeping...my problem is that these dems never 'compromise' with us...

also, why the F*#@ is there only 4 million NRA memmbers and MUCH less GOA members...

sad sad...

VOTE RON PAUL!
DB
 
Quid pro quo

If the NRA wants to support a bill that restricts gun rights, they damn better get something in return for it. Like a repeal of the overbroad Lautenberg amendment, and a fair and speedy appeal process for persons wrongly denied their right to buy a firearm.
 
Getting this bill thru allows certain representatives to say they voted for an anti-gun or crime control bill and gives them cover when they vote against HR1022.

The NRA guys in DC have playbooks and know who's in what district in what kinda political fight, and who has to vote on some kinda "looks like antigun" bill.

Some reps think they have to vote a certain way at least once on a given subject - here, guns. This gives them that opportunity.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
 
It's more gun control any way you cut it.

A pig is still a pig no matter how much lipstick you put on it.
 
If the NRA wants to support a bill that restricts gun rights

This bill doesn't add any new restrictions to gun rights. It bribes states to automate their records so that more records of prohibited people can be added to the system.

It doesn't change the definition of who a prohibited person is. Of course, how would anyone know this since it is only pointed out several times in the last 10 threads where this subject came up and once again in this thread prior to my post?
 
Well Regulated
This is frof another forum I am on. This girl is going through, worse crap than I am.
In the state of Michigan, an assault is chargable as a domestic violence, when the parties have had a dating relationship/marriage/lived together/intimate relationship/or a child together. Doesn't matter how long it has been since the marriage/dating relationship, etc, an assault and battery; harassment; stalking charge between these parties would be construed under the criminal laws, as an act of domestic violence.

Now here comes the tricky part: in the state of Michigan, when a police officer is accussed of domestic violence, it is not processed through the criminal justice system. Instead, (under current laws), the victim has to go to the officer's department and file a complaint (civil), against the officer. It is up to the police department as to file criminal charges against their officer...which for civil liability reasons, more than likely, isn't going to happen.

Instead, the police department will investigate the act of dv, as a policy violation (no criminal sanctions). At the officer's hearing, the victim will not be able to testify or have witnesses testify. More protections for the abusing officer: in the state of Michigan, police departments have their own policies/reprimand policies. Under those policies, the department/officer is guarenteed privacy rights= nothing concerning the victim's claim of dv or the officer's reprimand hearing or reprimand he received can be discussed with anyone outside the agency.

In other words, the police department can have evidence support the victim's claim of dv...the pd can claim during the reprimand hearing that it never happened, and not do anything about it...and there is no state/county/city agency that can intervene or overstep the department's decision/mishandling of the officer's dv.

More laws: the privacy right act that protects these hearings, the pd, and the officer, also allow for the pd to destroy all records of the complaint; hearing; and reprimand after 4 years. So you can have a Michigan police officer beating the crap out of his wife, and nothing can be done about it...the victim is not protected under the same laws in Michigan, as other victims of dv.

It gets better. Victims such as myself wised up to how police departments were covering up police officer dv. So instead of filing a complaint with our abuser's department, word got out, "go to the Michigan State Police and file a criminal complaint". What this does, it is trumps the police department being allowed to do just a civil policy complaint against the officer...and it puts the dv complaint into criminal court....giving us the same rights as all those other dv victims. Right?

Wrong. On December 31, 2006, the Michigan Governor signed into law SB0647. With this law, if a victim goes to the MSP for a dv complaint against an officer, his department can at the same time start a department policy violation investigation against the officer. And whatever is disclosed during the abuser's department investigation and hearing of the officer cannot be turned over to the MSP or the prosecutor for criminal charges. SB0647 protects this information from being used for criminal prosecution against the officer.

Back to Deputy Poop. Let's say that I return to Michigan and move to da UP. Deputy Poop finds me in da UP and beats the crap out of me. Doesn't matter if he's off duty or on duty, he tells the arresting officer, "I'm a Sheriff Deputy with the such and such department...I want to talk to my union rep."

At the same time the UP MSP are filing criminal charges against Deputy Poop, the troll Sheriff Department is having a hearing for him on violation of department policies...and whatever is disclosed during that hearing, cannot be used in the criminal case. He's untouchable...simply because he is a law enforcement officer in Michigan.

Now, all that stuff doesn't hold water, as long as I live in Indiana. Deputy Poop illegally hunted me down in Indiana a few weeks after I moved here. An Indiana Senator, Congressman, Chief of Police, Sheriff, and Judge let Deputy Poop know, that if he so much as harasses me, they aren't letting him slide. The minute Deputy Poop crosses the state line for the purpose of stalking, harassing, or harming me, Federal laws are involved. FBI doesn't play games.
 
My freedom is not negotiable. Negotiations only happen when there is going to be a surrender of some sort. That should never be an option.

That the NRA would ever negotiate anything authored by McArthy is enough for me not to renew my membership. I might just call and ask to cancel. :fire: I'll be giving my money to GOA and JPFO from now on.
 
I fear that this could turn into something that would bar gun ownership because someone went through a bout of depression, or went to family counseling, or had marital problems. Not only would that disarm many gun owners who are a threat to no one, they would also prevent gun owners from getting proper help in fear of being disarmed. The fact that the NRA is bending AGAIN is definitely starting to worry me...I'm and EPL member, and if I start getting the feeling they are screwing us over Im definitely canceling the remainder of my membership.
 
I don't understand why gun owners would want the Congress to pass laws without any input from gun owners.

Do they want it so they can continue to complain about bad laws that are passed because gun owners aren't consulted?

Doctors would scream bloody murder if the Congress passed laws affecting them without input from the American Medical Association. Lawyers would raise the roof if the American Bar Association wasn't consulted about laws that affect them.

Gun owners, however, scream "Betrayal!" when the Congress at last recognizes that the NRA should have input. It doesn't make sense to me.

:confused:
 
I fear that this could turn into something that would bar gun ownership because someone went through a bout of depression, or went to family counseling, or had marital problems. Not only would that disarm many gun owners who are a threat to no one, they would also prevent gun owners from getting proper help in fear of being disarmed. The fact that the NRA is bending AGAIN is definitely starting to worry me...I'm and EPL member, and if I start getting the feeling they are screwing us over Im definitely canceling the remainder of my membership.

Once again, that is not what they are talking about doing. I suspect the new version will be 'less' bad than the old one.
 
It's not the NICS system, it's the BRADY SYSTEM. THAT'S IT'S NAME.

What's really needed is a system where if a person want's to own a gun, they should have to go through interviews and prove they're not a criminal, or not crazy, or not this or not that. Because that's a fundamental principle, right? Guilty until proven innocent? Right? Government gets the benefit of the doubt, and citizens need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are not criminals - right? The burden of proof should reside on the citizen, not the state, right?




Bartholomew Roberts it is a REGISTRY. Honestly, you always have a lot of good information, but on this one you are just so wrong. It's licensing and registration, by the back door!


Wow, Americans will have the privilege of having national licenses and registry too. You all want to vote for that go ahead and stay silent. And then after it's proven to be a bad thing, go get vocal. That's the time to speak up, when it's too late. Yea.:banghead:


awkx Lautenberg is being expanded!
The bill will also expand the Lautenberg
misdemeanor gun ban, which disarms
people who are convicted of minor
offenses that include raising one’s voice to
a family member in one’s own home.
“The gun grabbers are seeking to
force the states to provide the federal government
all of these indictment records,
updated quarterly.


But what does anyone have to worry about - government is deleting more laws every year right? The number of 'offences' isn't growing, or anything. That's not an open-ended carte blanche given right there - right?



Oh yes, and while 'there's nothing new' they're also adding mental health records. You think your health is your own business? Hahaha guess again. It's not your business, it's the government's business. But there's nothing new here to see, move along.

Wishing you hadn't wasted hundreds of dollars seeing that shrink or marriage councilor, and now it can be used to deny you on top of that. I mean come on, someone who likes guns is obviously violent by definition.
 
It most certainly DOES look like this WILL change the system. From the legal wording that one user psoted it looks like anyone comitted to a mental health facility voluntarily or involuntarily would be unable to purchase a gun. Now it only says involuntarily on the backround check. How long until it says "have you ever been depressed or been to a psycologist"?

Normally the saving grace would be that Democrats value personal privacy and especially medical records when the vote on policy. Somehow I believe that they will only value these records for there helpless peasants not the evil gun owners though :(

Would some of you who are preaching that nothing will change explain this to me so I can figure out whether or not to call and write a nasty letter to the NRA.
 
"How long until it says "have you ever been depressed or been to a psycologist"?"

If you let the other side write the bill without any input from our side (the NRA) then it probably won't be too long.

From what I've read, only 22 states submit mental health records - the rest claim they can't afford it. This bill is supposed to provide money. This bill also is supposed to require that the NICS system accept updated info from the states to remove persons from the prohibited list who should not be prohibited.

Why is there so much shouting about the sky is falling and so little discussion of the facts?

John
 
It most certainly DOES look like this WILL change the system.

Not the way it reads and it the present time I would refrain from calling the NRA.The excerpt below is from the United States Code, Title 18. As you can see those laws are already in the books. The mental adjudications, being committed to mental institution, even the domestic violence misdemeanor which some folks thought it is something new. This bill is about enforcement not adding anything new. I also agree that we need the NRA on the table just to make sure that this does not go beyond enforcement and add new stuff to it. GOA is crying bloody murder but if we follow their logic we will end up being screwed up. I see this thing with the GOA as trying to use this situation and get political gains at the expense at the NRA but unfortunately at the end at the expense of the gun owner rights. I most definitely disagree with the GOA tactics here.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who [1] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top