NRA and today's compromise

Status
Not open for further replies.
"To all who agreed and even defended my position, thank you. We seem to be able to see a bit more clearly than some."

That's your attempt at sticking to the high road, patting yourself on the back with slap at everyone who disagrees with you?

Sad.

John
 
John, I don't think that's fair. I think that 44AMP's statement has literal truth in it.

Some people aren't seeing the issue clearly at all, for whatever reason. Many people seem to be inserting their own fears into the situation and projecting them onto the NRA without ever firmly grasping what the bill is about in the first place.

The only valid criticism I've seen yet is what Bart posted about the ATF's "one strike and yer out" approach to mental illness. However, that situation exists NOW. This bill doesn't change it.

Maybe a better approach to lambasting the NRA over essentially nothing is to encourage them to help insert language into the new bill that gives those who have been adjudicated as mentally ill a venue for appeal.
 
Maybe a better approach to lambasting the NRA over essentially nothing is to encourage them to help insert language into the new bill that gives those who have been adjudicated as mentally ill a venue for appeal.
Click to expand...

Actually, a law that allows this already exists and even better, it allows all gun owners to appeal, not just those who have been adjudicated mentally ill. The problem is that Congress has not appropriated any funds to process these requests since 1992. So if we could simply get Congress to fund this law, that would be nice for a lot of people (one example being THR members like pcosmar).
 
"John, I don't think that's fair. I think that 44AMP's statement has literal truth in it."

Here's the statement - ""To all who agreed and even defended my position, thank you. We seem to be able to see a bit more clearly than some.""

Where's the truth in it, that everyone who didn't agree and defend his position is somehow vision impaired? Might as well just go ahead and call them stupid, less logical, or less intelligent instead of couching it in terms seeing more clearly.

John
 
get an NRA acceptable version.

So gun control is acceptable to the NRA? Figures.
 
Funding for NICS appeals process

Actually, a law that allows this already exists and even better, it allows all gun owners to appeal.... The problem is that Congress has not appropriated any funds to process these requests since 1992. So if we could simply get Congress to fund this law, that would be nice for a lot of people....
Click to expand...
Can you identify this law please? I would like to write to the NRA asking them to insert a funding clause into the bill that they're supporting.
 
I see this incarnation of the same old thing has a provision for correcting errors. It had these provisions before.
As I said, this MAY help me, but I won't be holding my breath.
It also strengthens Lautenberg, a horrendous law.
The mental health side is truly dangerous.
These gun CONTROL laws are never about restoring rights to citizens, but are about prohibiting ownership to as many as possible.
 
The only way it "strengthens" Lautenberg is if you were lying on your 4473 before, and you'd get caught after the records are updated.

The problem, then, would lie with the offal that is the Lautenberg Amendment and not HR297 (or some version of it), which is what the current round of hysterics is about.
 
The opposing view here (perceived by some as hysteria) amounts to following this line of reasoning ("strengthen the yellow form / NICS check") to its extreme, and noting that the extreme is neither desirable nor unlikely.

You can tighten these restrictions all you want. Cho would still manage to get one. The proposed law, prompted by VT, would have done little to hinder those bent on mass murder.

If the NRA is going to support this, accepting restrictions (be they arguably reasonable), we should still see concessions from the other side somewhere somehow. In exchange for tightening the mental health restrictions, we should get a loosening of, say, guns on campus by the demonstrably sane & upstanding.
 
get an NRA acceptable version.

So gun control is acceptable to the NRA? Figures.
____________

Nice try at spin there. Silly play on words, but nicely done.

NRA acceptable vs. a Democratic Party bill with NO gunowner input.

Would you rather let the politicians write bills and pass laws with no direct input by the NRA? I wouldn't.

John
 
It's probably easier on him than having to retype his post every time somebody does some hating on the NRA. And there's a rash of hating going on with few facts to back it up.

Joh
 
NRA acceptable vs. a Democratic Party bill with NO gunowner input.
Click to expand...
Gun control legislation rarely passes without REPUBLICAN support.

Dems didn't get much thru in NY without Pataki (R) - who was touted by the NRA as pro-gun-rights.

The famed Assault Weapons Ban would have failed altogether if Bob Dole (R) hadn't promised support in turn for a 10-year sunset clause. It was nice to have it go away after a decade (!), but we wouldn't have put up with it at all if not for Dole pushing for an "acceptable" version.

From what I gather, this new bill wouldn't pass at all without being tweaked to be "NRA Approved". While the approved form is certainly better, wouldn't the preferred form be none at all?
 
It hasn't passed yet. All sorts of bills have died on committee before ever reaching the floor. Even if it gets through the House, there's the Senate and they keep voting it down. Time will tell.

It just seems more logical to me to oppose it after it's drafted and not based on rumor and fear of what it might turn out to be.

John
 
One could argue that the AWB was the best thing that ever happened for supporters of the Second Amendment. It forced us to create a grass-roots political block that is now one of the most effective political entities in the world. This is especially amazing because we are not even officially organized into a traditional, old-style political action group, but rather consist of a large, vocal, and active group of individuals bound together by our deeply held belief in a common-sense approach to gun ownership. Because of this, 2A rights activists are a far more powerful and unified and proactive group than we would ever have been if we had to rely on cumbersome, old-world organizations like the NRA. I'm not dismissing the NRA; it serves its purpose and deserves our support. I'm just saying that, thanks in large part to the AWB, we have all rolled up our sleeves and have done the hard work needed to protect our 2A rights in a much more effective way than the NRA could ever hope to do.
 
"...Maybe a better approach to lambasting the NRA over essentially nothing is to encourage them to help insert language into the new bill that gives those who have been adjudicated as mentally ill a venue for appeal...."
Click to expand...
There are provisions for appeal in the proposed legislation.

Mike
 
As long as the McCarthy/Dingell/Schumer(and those of their ilk) are proposing legislation, I don't trust them one whit. You can almost guarantee that it will not be good for the voter-on-the-street (let alone the gun-owning).
 
The kind of "adjudications" NRA is supporting are those that occur without any legal counsel for the individual and with a 2 minute "hearing." The police say "Bob is acting weird again. We need to get him evaluated." The only way to force Bob to see a mental health "professional" (many states don't require the "professional" to be a trained psychiatrist, a psychiatric SOCIAL WORKER will do) is to BRAND him as "as danger" to someone, then you can reguire him to be examined. All of this happens BEFORE there is any diagnosis. The judge JUST GUESSES (in Va. a part-time judge).

If Bob is cleared by the REAL psychiatrist, it does not erase the "finding" (guess) made by the ill-informed so-called judge. And under 18 USC 922, it lasts forever.

IAAL, it's a kangaroo court.

P. S. Remember that, in 2007, most psychiatrists consider gun ownership alone to be a "sign" of mental illness.

P. S. The unintended consequence of this is that after I explain the consequences of seeking mental health treatment to my clients, NONE will ever go voluntarily. Would you?
 
Can you identify this law please? I would like to write to the NRA asking them to insert a funding clause into the bill that they're supporting.
Click to expand...

The law that is not being funded is 18 U.S.C. 925(c) - Relief From Disabilities.

I see this incarnation of the same old thing has a provision for correcting errors. It had these provisions before.
Click to expand...

My read is that the bill only allows correction of records that were entered into NICS incorrectly or records that do not meet the criteria established by 922(g) and (n).

As I said, this MAY help me, but I won't be holding my breath.
Click to expand...

As written, it doesn't help you unless the records you are having removed show that you are not a prohibited person; but were somehow sent to NICS anyway (example: you underwent voluntary observation in a mental institution and a record of this got sent to NICS as being "all relevant records" despite the fact this doesn't prohibit you from owning a gun under 922(g). You could petition to have this record removed).

if the record shows you did actually meet 922(g) or (n) (example: You do have a domestic misdemeanor violence conviction but it is 40 years old and you have no record since), you are still hosed.

Getting funding for 18 USC 925(c) would fix that by allowing anyone who was legally prohibited from owning a firearm to petition ATF and show that they should be removed from that category.

One other thing. Most of the case law I have read deals with being committed to a mental institution. One of the concepts that most courts have adopted is that if you aren't permanently committed by court order in a setting where you have counsel to advocate for you, then you get to own firearms. However, the government has never made the argument that I made earlier in this thread - that Cho, while he may not have met the regulatory definition of involuntarily committed, did meet the regulatory definition of "adjudicated mental defective." So that is pretty vague legal ground - it might stand up in court or it might not.

Some of the court opinions that have addressed 922(g) restrictions (5th Circuit and 8th Circuit) have strong language suggesting that Cho's court order would not be sufficient to prohibit him from owning a firearm under 922(g).
 
after I explain the consequences of seeking mental health treatment to my clients, NONE will ever go voluntarily.
Click to expand...
Before anyone responds to that with analysis, reason, and consideration of nuanced details, remember:
Most people don't know what the law actually says - any law. Per the above quote, consider that few (especially those whose head isn't working right) will find out what such a law says, what exactly that means for their situation, and how to address & refute unfavorable outcomes.
All that will come out to most people is "see a shrink, lose your guns." The details and nuances of the law is practically irrelevant.
Participants in this thread, intelligent people who can address this issue, can't even agree on what's happening; how much less understanding and rational consideration will come from someone who, say, wants to see a shrink about ongoing anxiety attacks, but won't because "I might lose my guns" - and that because they're too tired & skittish from prolonged inadequate sleep?

Methinks the correct view of this pending legislation is: would it have stopped Cho? Answer - NO. At best, he may have been slowed down a bit, not buying from a store, and having to paw thru the classifieds instead for a private, and still legal, purchase.
This legislation, while understandable, can only culminate in:
- ALL gun purchases must be via background check
- ANY court-related mental-health issues will hinder, if not prevent, a purchase
- ALL purchase records will be recorded long-term, so that any court-related mental-health issue WILL result in review of gun ownership, if not outright confiscation.
- Next up will be every other "have you ever ..." disqualification listed on the "yellow form", with all the background check, Big Brother database monitoring, compulsory registration of arms explicitly for potential confiscation, and general public misunderstanding of the details leading to generic non-cooperation and grey/black-market activities.

And on top of all this, gun owners get NOTHING in return for support of this legislation. Not even "you've got registration, permits, and licenses three times over, a proven upstanding citizen being closely monitored, so I guess we will let you carry in the classroom lest another VT occur."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Dingell, NRA Working on Bill to Strengthen Background Checks
2 3 4 5
Replies
119
Views
4K
camacho
C
D
  • Locked
The NRA Pledges Millions for Bush's Reelection Bid
Replies
2
Views
446
Tag
Tag
A
  • Locked
rec'd from GOA
Replies
6
Views
494
RealGun
RealGun
A
  • Locked
Is the NRA working against CCW in Illinois?
Replies
3
Views
530
Art Eatman
A
M
  • Locked
WI: more about WGO
Replies
15
Views
610
cosine
C
Back
Top