Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NRA letter - Executive Branch Reform Act of 2007

Discussion in 'Legal' started by .cheese., Jun 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. .cheese.

    .cheese. Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,808
    Just got the letter. What is everybody doing about this?
     
  2. jpk1md

    jpk1md Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    620
    Didn't get a copy yet...whats it say?

    The Bill is here thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.984:

    Not sure why I should care too much
     
  3. .cheese.

    .cheese. Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,808
    I have to read the bill myself, but the NRA is claiming that it will mean that should we send in letters to congress members voicing our opinions regarding 2A/RKBA (or for that matter anything I think)... we will be listed on a website with our name and address for all to see.

    Couple that with various places listing 2A supporters as domestic terrorists and... well.... I don't like it one bit.
     
  4. breakerilya

    breakerilya Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    Messages:
    24
    this must not pass!
     
  5. Rumble

    Rumble Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    Indiana, PA
    What the bill seems to say is that any significant contact between a private party and an official in the Executive branch must be recorded, including: names, subject matter, date, and whether the contact was on behalf of a client of the private party.

    Significant contact is defined as any communication in which the private party seeks to influence official action by any official in the executive branch. Significant contacts do not include communication that is an exception to the definition of "lobbying contact," as defined in some other law i didn't look up.

    Private party is defined as anyone except someone in Federal/state/local employ.


    The last action on this bill was apparently in mid-February.
     
  6. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    I have a problem with that.

    EDIT: What I mean is I have a problem with only recording contacts with "private" persons, not between government officials/employees who don't normally work together.

    Any such contact by government officials, especially any that are not PART of the Executive Branch, should be recorded in exactly the same way.

    Especially given Federalism, how is such a contact between Joe Schmo, Honorable Mayor of Hookahville, and the President, really any different from a contact between Mary Schmo, CEO of the Hookahville Motor Car Corp., and the President?

    The town of Hookahville is looking after its own independent interests, which might or might not conflict with those of the USA as a whole (and which might flow money into the town coffers or the Mayor's wallet). What's the difference between that and a similar contact with the Hookahville Motor Car Corp.?

    This bill seems to be all about increasing and consolidating government power and secrecy across the board, while diminishing the influence of any private party on the Executive Branch. That doesn't sound too democratic, but it's pretty typical of "liberal" ideas to improve things.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2007
  7. Rumble

    Rumble Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    Indiana, PA
    I only need a tinfoil visor to assume that having to record any significant contact between government types would just be a major buzzkill on any back-room wheeling and dealing they were hoping to do.
     
  8. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Does it say anywhere why anyone would need to know? I will wait for Jeff Sessions to explain it, but I guarantee he won't defend it. I want to know who thinks up this stuff, really...not the sponsor but who came up with the concept.
     
  9. Chad

    Chad Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    263
    Location:
    Central Florida
    It would be ironic if this passed by a voice vote.
     
  10. Kali Endgame

    Kali Endgame member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Messages:
    516
    Location:
    In a constant state of confusion.
    The Executive and Legislative branch should have an accurate record of their contacts, so we can see what special interest groups are screwing the rest of the country. We need more accountability of our elected officials.
     
  11. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    Peasants are getting a might too uppity. Gotta slap 'em down. Can't have the dolts think they have the right to redress of grievences before congress. Too much talk radio goin' on out there. Too many people emailin', faxin', and phonein' to congress. Too much time being spent dealing with the flood of communication. Gotta stop it for the sake of the congr. . . er, people.
     
  12. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    This seems to me to be an assault on the first amendment.
    It would seem to try to control those who contact their elected representatives about those issues important to them by treating them like Sex Offenders.
    But it is no more an infringement of rights than any of the NCIS laws so I guess its OK.

    Jefferson
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page