NRA e-mail : "The truth about the NICS improvement act"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding the comment about ex-con's should be able to own firearms. I disagree 100% with this view. In my view, ex-con's lack the moral judgement and responsibility to own firearms. Recidivism runs about 60%, alot of ex-con's end up re-offending. Some ex-con's don't have much respect for human life, enter a firearm = bad deal. Even if its a non-violent offense, such as simple theft, they've already proven to society that they don't respect authority and have zero moral compass. There should be NO firearms for these people. Granted, they can steal them, or buy them off of the street, but they are committing a felony to obtain the weapon in the first place.

I also dis-agree with the "all or nothing philosophy". We can either settle for this bill, which the NRA had a heavy hand in drafting, keeping the scope of the bill where it should be, or we can let McCarthy and Schumer run roughshod and pass something much worse and draconian. This bill doesn't really bother me that much. One way or the other, congress was going to do something after the VT shootings, at least the NRA is minimizing the potential damage.

I believe the "I'm not renewing my membership with the NRA crowd", does more damage than good. How does sticking your head in the sand advance our cause? If we do this, then the anti-gun crowd will have a field day. Sometimes, you have to work with your enemies. Maybe the NRA will gain some positive PR out of this, the perception that "maybe those NRA people aren't a bunch of right wing gun nut extremist's". This may give the NRA a more positive image to the general public, not a bad thing.
 
Well Redneck...
Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with what you say, I am very grateful that you stated your positions and opinions without insulting or belittling any other posters in the thread.

You may think that's an unusual thing to be grateful for, but the atmosphere around here has gotten kind of ugly lately with some folks berating other folks who return it in kind.

So, odd or not, thanks.
 
There are no NEW restrictions in this act. Is this true? If true, why are we beating up the NRA for supporting it?

How often have I heard pro RKBA people say, "We should better enforce the gun laws on the books rather than enact new ones."

K
 
Regarding the comment about ex-con's should be able to own firearms. I disagree 100% with this view. In my view, ex-con's lack the moral judgement and responsibility to own firearms.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that because too many "crimes" on the books that shouldn't be crimes (the example of videotaping the police in the course of their duties being a felony is a good example).

Like all gun control laws, all that laws forbidding former criminals from possessing guns does is disarm the honest former criminals ... the bad guys will pack heat regardless.

I guess I have a problem with the blanket statement that anyone convicted of a crime (in particular a felony) is obviously someone that can't be trusted to own a firearm.

In addition to the example I sited above, I've used this as an example before.

I own a carbine kit for my Steyr M40:
scopemount_on_carbine.jpg

If I assemble the parts that make up that carbine in the wrong order, I have committed the felony of "Unlicensed Manufacture of a Short Barreled Rifle".

So you're telling me that if I go to the range and Agent Schmuckatelli witnesses me screw up and put the stock on the frame before I remove the pistol barrel and put the 16" barrel on it that I've demonstrated such a great lack of judgment and morality that I deserve to have my second amendment rights completely eliminated for the rest of my life?

Lord I hope you never run afoul of some sort of Malum Prohibitum law and find yourself without RKBA.


I don't like the idea of stripping people of their constitutional rights for any reason, but I'm willing to concede the felon thing as long as non violent and reformed felons have some sort of legal recourse ... some way to have their rights restored (and one that doesn't cost a kings ransom and take 30 years).

I believe the "I'm not renewing my membership with the NRA crowd", does more damage than good.
Click to expand...
On that point, you and I agree 100%
 
Doctors due to the nature of the profession are easily influenced by professional organizations like the AMA. The AMA is already anti-gun and would not need much prompting to add a new "disorder" to the soft science of psychology.
Click to expand...

I am a doctor, but not a member of the AMA. I withdrew my membership when they classified gun injuries as a public health problem, and wrote the president of the AMA a nice letter explaining.

I agree that doctors are often manipulated, and don't doubt that someone could contrive a gun-related psychiatric disorder. But the law is very specific. The person has to be adjudicated mentally defective, a threat to himself or others, and/or be involuntarily committed to a hospital. Personality disorders and neuroses do not rise to that degree of mental defect. So I think if I was ever diagnosed with, say, 1911 obsessive disorder, it would not rise to the severity level needed to bar me from gun ownership. Neither would phobias or neuroses.
 
Redneck with a 40 said.
Regarding the comment about ex-con's should be able to own firearms. I disagree 100% with this view. In my view, ex-con's lack the moral judgement and responsibility to own firearms. Recidivism runs about 60%, alot of ex-con's end up re-offending. Some ex-con's don't have much respect for human life, enter a firearm = bad deal.alot of ex-con's end up re-offending. Some ex-con's don't have much respect for human life, enter a firearm = bad deal.
Click to expand...
"Recidivism runs about 60%," When I got out it was 80%. That still means that 20 to 40% go on to live lawful and hopefully productive lives.
"Some" and "alot" is very different than all.
I am not criminally intent, but I would like to own a firearm for several reasons.
I am one of those % that have stayed out.
 
I am a doctor, but not a member of the AMA. I withdrew my membership when they classified gun injuries as a public health problem, and wrote the president of the AMA a nice letter explaining.
Click to expand...
The more strident the AMA gets with their anti gun position the more doctors are going to follow your lead ... and more important than the memberships lost will be the membership dues lost.

I think the NRA should put together some sort of outreach to pro-gun doctors and get them to turn the AMA in the right direction (or destroy it outright).
 
Criminals have either paid their debt to society when they are released...or they shouldn't be released. All their rights as a citizen should be re-instated.

The "mentally ill" who have never broken the law should be able to defend themselves. Denial/registration/confiscation.

I am bi-polar and I have firearms. Don't be the first one through the door.
 
There is not now or will ever be a law that will keep a BAD PERSON from getting a weapon if they want one.:banghead:
Laws only keep GOOD PEOPLE from getting weapons.
 
Here is a word-for-word comparison of McCarthy's original HR 297 versus the NRA-supported HR 2640 as passed by the House. Verbiage deleted from HR 297 is struck through and shown in red. Verbiage added by HR 2640 is underlined.

From what I see, the Democrats got a feel-good piece of legislation so that they can claim they did something about gun control after VT and the NRA got a few small, but positive advances in the process.

While I would prefer to see wholesale abolishment of gun control laws, that will not happen soon. In the meantime, I like anything that leads to fewer restrictions rather than more restrictions.
 
In my view, ex-con's lack the moral judgement and responsibility to own firearms. Recidivism runs about 60%, alot of ex-con's end up re-offending.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that prohibiting ex-cons from having guns, and actually KEEPING THEM from having guns, are two completely different things. Making it illegal for ex-cons to own guns doesn't stop the ones who decide to re-offend from being armed, it just requires the existance of a whole system of two classes of citizenship, where we have to go crawling to the government for permission to exercise our Constitutional right to own guns. That's a heavy price to pay for a law that doesn't actually accomplish much in practice.
 
Having any number of mental disorders does not disqualify you from gun ownership, even with the new law. Only if you have been deemed mentally defective by a court, a danger to yourself or others, or involuntarily commited would you be affected.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty straight forward to me. I think it is okay. Crazies and criminals are going to get guns anyway they can if they really want it. This is just a safeguard from them getting it legitimately.
 
Zundfolge said:
But the fact is that some form of this bill was going to happen after VT no matter what ...
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. If they could have passed it without the support of the NRA they would have in a heartbeat.
 
"But the fact is that some form of this bill was going to happen after VT no matter what ..."

My response....Had they passed the bill without the support of the NRA, it would have been much more draconian, than what we are currently facing. Since the NRA was able to negotiate the substance of the bill, this is a good thing in my book.
 
Watch closely for "obsession with weapons" to become a "syndrome" or "disorder" appearing in a DSM near you.

It's the ultimate end run.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Freedom and security are mutually exclusive. Take your pick. For me, I would much rather live in a "dangerous" society, where felons and "mental defectives" are free to keep and bear arms, than a "safe" society, where the police power of the state decides who - and who can't - exercise their inalienable rights.

I much prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery. - Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
 
"But the fact is that some form of this bill was going to happen after VT no matter what ..."

My response....Had they passed the bill without the support of the NRA, it would have been much more draconian, than what we are currently facing. Since the NRA was able to negotiate the substance of the bill, this is a good thing in my book.
Click to expand...

If they had to resort to a suprise voice vote to get this sucker passed even WITH the NRA promising to run interference for anybody who got in trouble for casting the vote, I seriously doubt anything would have passed without NRA support.

Gun control is politically radioactive, the Democrats are scared to touch it until they've put at least one more election behind them, and secured their majority. They'd never have taken a chance on this without the NRA's support.
 
If they had to resort to a suprise voice vote to get this sucker passed
Click to expand...
I have seen this type of allegation in several threads, but I don't know where it comes from. There have been NO news reports of Republicans complaining that there was any sort of trickery involving the vote for this bill.

Voice votes are used when the vast majority of representatives agree with a motion (in this case to pass HR2640).

A single representative can request a record vote (rollcall) on a voice vote.

The Congressional Record (H6347, paragraphs 1115-1118, June 13, 2007) does not show that there was a request for a record vote.
 
Voice votes are used when the vast majority of representatives agree with a motion (in this case to pass HR2640).
Click to expand...

I took civics in High school. I also have watched enough CSPAN to know that what I was taught was an idealized description of how we're supposed to THINK the system works, not how it actually works. A while back, a bad injury laid me up in bed for a month, and I watched easilly a hundred hours of CSPAN. I never once saw a quorum call go to completion. Not one stinking time.

Voice votes are used when it has been arranged that only people supporting a motion will be present, and it is necessary to conceal the resulting absense of a quorum. That's real life civics. That's the way the system really works.

And while a single Representative can request a roll call vote, under the circumstances where voice votes normally occur, his chances of getting one are indistinguishable from zero.

I will bet real money that, if you could document the location of every member of the House at the time that voice vote was held, you'd find over half of them were somewhere else. And you'd find that our best allies were among the absent.

There have been NO news reports of Republicans complaining that there was any sort of trickery involving the vote for this bill.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah: Calling a suprise voice vote when over half the members are somewhere else is not, by the depraved standards of today's Congress, considered "trickery". It's SOP. Doesn't mean that it doesn't stink, it just means anything goes in Congress today.
 
And while a single Representative can request a roll call vote, under the circumstances where voice votes normally occur, his chances of getting one are indistinguishable from zero.
Click to expand...

You are aware that a request for a rollcall vote would be recorded in the Congressional Record. And no such request was made for HR 2640.
 
"If they could have passed it without the support of the NRA they would have in a heartbeat."

It wouldn't have been in a heartbeat, it would have taken a lot of work and lots of time to guide it through. But being in the majority, the Democrats could have guided it through because the bill looks good to the voters - all the voters back home in their Repub and Dem districts.

Like the man said, very little has changed. It's been against the law for persons who have been involuntarily committed to own firearms since 1968. The database isn't about medical records, it's about legal records of committments, etc. They don't even need to know why you were committed, just that you were. The records are submitted by the courts, not the medical system.

John
 
You are aware that a request for a rollcall vote would be recorded in the Congressional Record. And no such request was made for HR 2640.
Click to expand...

I'm aware that the Congressional Record is frequently a work of fiction.:rolleyes: But I don't recall ever claiming anybody had made such a request. Merely that it would certainly have been futile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
"nics Improvement Amendments Act" Not Gun Control!
Replies
22
Views
647
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
re all the argument on H.R. 2640, how come the followiong seems ignored?
Replies
0
Views
295
alan
A
B
  • Locked
Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
184
Views
10K
Phil Lee
P
A
  • Locked
NRA alert on Senate Passed (voice vote) NICS Improvement legislation
Replies
1
Views
339
Sage of Seattle
S
M
  • Locked
NRA Statement On Legislative Efforts On Capitol Hill
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
RIDE
R
Back
Top