NRA Members and HR 297 NICS Improvement Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnBT:

I'm worried....

A serious presence of common sense in that article. Must be a typo....

(Thanks!)

Guess my reaction is that if any of the usual gang (Schumer, McCarthy, Brady, etc.) wants it, I'm against it.

What the criminal and terrorist friendly folks can't see is that you absolutely cannot prevent the Cho's of the world from acting out their fantasies (or insanities), and staking our kids out to be murdered the way the VT people did is the real problem. Instead, they're running around in circles chasing a loophole that's barely there.

Regards,
 
This sounds good on the surface, and I am all for including the mental health provisions in the NICS. What bothers me is that the McCarthy/Schumer tie-in just doesn't ring true. I just don't trust them any further than I can drop-kick an elephant.
 
John Dingle, a traitor and former NRA Board Member, is lobbying hard with his former crony's in the NRA to, at least, keep them out of this fight!!
Gun Owners of America is all over this!!
My money is going to them!!
Trust me, the NRA is gonna rape gun owners on this!
Click to expand...
Congratulations, you have fallen for GOA and JPFO's irresponsible hype.
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=273063

This legislation directly addresses a problem with mental health records not being tied into NICS - that's a problem for every law-abiding gun-owner who cherishes the Second Amendment. Everytime someone who is NOT a law-abiding gun-owner commits this king of atrocity, it has the possibility of rolling back on us directly. We must be clear that the problem here is not the law, it's not gun-owners or guns. It's mental illness. NRA is absolutely correct here.

I'm sure many here recall how Clinton tried to take advantage of criminal behavior to pass new gun laws and restrict the rights of law-abiding people. NRA stopped that by focusing on the REAL problem - the Clinton administration failing to enforce existing gun laws, exposing him for the political liar he is.

This is very similar. NRA has insisted on a high standard - one has to be adjudicated by a court as mentally defective - i.e., a danger to themselves or others. This does NOT include those under mental treatment or act out in an eccentric manner ala "Brittney Spears"-style.

Cho had been adjudicated by a court a danger to himself or others and that should have placed him in a prohibited class. When he tried and failed to purchase his first gun, we should have become aware of that.

Those who are spun up by GOA's scare tactics need to think about one thing - Do they want to PROTECT the ability of the mentally defective to purchase firearms? No gun-owner should support that idea. I certainly don't want NRA to take such a position. The issue really is making asure that proper steps are taken to identify the mentally defective, that there is no potential for abuse.

Of course, GOA and JPFO aren't telling you that. They have a financial incentive to turn members away from NRA and it has NOTHING to do with defending the Second Amendment. Don't be fooled by their outrageous rhetoric.

NRA's board is elected by it's (MUCH larger - 20, 30 times larger) membership. They are governed by corporate law and have a fiduciary responsibility to serve their members. None of that is true about the tiny GOA and JPFO, which is probably why they stay so tiny. Most gun-owners see through their game.

Mike
 
"No gun-owner should support that idea."

I'm a gun owner and I support the idea that no one should be denied the right to have the means to defend him/herself. If some persons are unable to control themselves to the detriment of society they should be kept away from society and their safety guaranteed by 'we the people.' On the other hand, if - for whatever reason - we do not want to protect them and care for them we need to be prepared to defend ourselves against them.
Right now we have more people in prisons than any other country in the world, many, if not most of those people having been convicted of victimless crimes or of breaking "feel good" laws. This is another such law. As it is written now, the parameters for being included as a 'mental defective' are fairly plain and obvious. As with most such legislation though, once it's passed it's ripe for ammending with further "feel good" legislation. The NRA is helping to lift the tent flap and inviting the camel to take a sniff.
 
Why should people who don't agree with the NICS in the first place support the NRA trying to add more crap to it? And don't say it could be worse. The NRA is the one who took this misguided iniative. They could have just as easily sat there and done nothing. No gun control could've passed congress. Pretty much everyone with any political savvy admitted that.
 
Last edited:
"The NRA is the one who took this misguided iniative. They could have just as easily sat there and done nothing."

Um, the NRA did NOT introduce this bill. Hello, the NRA doesn't make the laws, the folks in Congress do it and somebody needs to be talking to them and trying, trying I say, to get them to see a little bit of reason. It's hard work no doubt.

"No gun control could've passed congress."

No? Then how did we end up with all this gun control? You're dreaming if you think they'll go away if they're ignored. They'll just pass whatever they like if left to their own devices.

John
 
"NO ONE WAS SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING PASSING ANYTHING until the NRA spoke up and supported a gun control bill."
The NRA needs to be pushing for a repeal of NICS, not pushing for more restrictions and more funding."<P>

No one was seriously considering gun control until a nut got a gun and killed 32 people less than 2 weeks ago. That's why Congress is debating gun legislation. To blame NRA for the fact that Congress is looking at these issues in the wake of the largest mass shooting in U.S. history is ridiculous.

Further, to suggest NRA should be focusing it's efforts on repealing NICS is just as silly. There simply isn't the will (votes) in Congress to do that. While I don't love NICS, I think it's better than a waiting period which is what we had from '93-'98. I suppose GOA would like to go back to the good old days of a 5-day wait instead of NICs.

Also, I still haven't seen anything from the NRA saying they support this bill. I've seen statements in the press suggesting NRA supports including the records of mental incompetants but no quotes from anyone at NRA saying they support this bill.

Finally, as I read it, the bill simply requires states to make available the names of individuals who are already prohibited by federal law from owning a gun. I for one do not believe that adjudicated mental incompetants, convicted murderers or child molesters should be able to get a gun. Call me crazy.
 
I'm no fan of NICS or any other impediment to buying firearms, but let's pick our battles here, y'all. Of all the ridiculous gun legislation on the books, NICS is the absolute last thing you'll find the votes to get rid of. 922(o) would go before that would.

Besides, all the panic and hyperbole aside, HR 297 doesn't really do much at all. Involuntary commitment to an institution bars one from possession anyway, and Lautenberg is already an unfortunate fact, so nothing new there. I'm failing to see what this bill actually does, other than throw money around.

Personally, I find it better that the blissninnies in Congress waste their time "strenghtening" something or other in a way that has hardly any practical effect than spend that time crafting dangerous legislation like HR 1022. Effort and time spent on HR 297, which does all of jack and squat, is effort and time that can't be spent on the truly bad stuff like HR 1022. Besides, with the pointlessness of this bill, OUR effort is also better spent elsewhere, such as stopping real threats like HR 1022, expanding CCW, eliminating the "sporting purposes" clause, and getting rid of 922(o).
 
Of all the ridiculous gun legislation on the books, NICS is the absolute last thing you'll find the votes to get rid of.
Click to expand...

True, but without NRA backing, the votes weren't there to make NICS more efficient, either. And, as noted above, if you think NICS was a bad idea in the first place, you're not going to think making it more efficient is a good idea.

There have been cases where the NRA's, "Help write the bill that's inevitably going to pass, so we can minimize the damage." tactics make at least a little sense. But this bill wasn't going anywhere without the NRA's backing. In a few weeks the storm was going to pass, and if we'd held firm, the laws would have remained unchanged. Might still happen, if we're very, very lucky, but no credit to the NRA if it does.

The NRA has just helped create the best opportunity the Democrats are likely to have before 2008 to pass a gun control bill without taking a political hit. And there's no telling what kind of crap they'll sneak into it in conference, or hid in the form of clauses that depend on regulations unelected bureaucrats can change after the bill is signed.

This bill is a big risk, and it's a risk we didn't have to take. The NRA has gone from having preemptive gun control legislation be a reasoned tactic, to it being an unreasoned reflex, IMO.
 
No gun control could've passed congress.
Click to expand...

Just to remind you that at the present time both the House and the Senate are controlled by the Dems. While I understand that nowadays the sentiment of the Dems is not to mess much with the gun control, I also believe that a case like Cho can easily awake some old cravings on their part which will be supported by the public opinion.

Having said that, I do not think that this tragedy has provoked very strong anti-gun sentiments on the part of the general electorate which is a good thing. As it was expressed here numerous times, when laws that affect firearm possession are drafted, wouldn't you prefer to have someone defend your interests on the table?!

Would you go to court without a lawyer and believe that the other side has your best interest at heart?!
 
Of all the ridiculous gun legislation on the books, NICS is the absolute last thing you'll find the votes to get rid of.
Click to expand...

Bingo! If one believes that NICS is going anywhere, one lives in Wonderland.
 
apparently many of you do not know the meaning of "shall not be infringed"

NICS infringes merely by the fact that a check is made against a list of standards...

the only thing that NICS should be checking is "are you now or presently in prison?".... No, then you have the Right to Keep and Bear arms... period.

I NEVER support ANY gun control... ever. Compromising Gun Rights is ALWAYS a LOSS. You go Compromise your own rights and stay off of mine!
 
the only thing that NICS should be checking is "are you now or presently in prison?"
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, I think if someone is incarcerated he/she might find it difficult to get to the gun shop, let alone fill an ATF form:confused:
 
the only thing that NICS should be checking is "are you now or presently in prison?"
Generally speaking, I think if someone is incarcerated he/she might find it difficult to get to the gun shop, let alone fill an ATF form
Click to expand...

My point exactly... NICS should not exist.
 
"apparently many of you do not know the meaning of "shall not be infringed""

Apparently you think many of us are stupid oxygen thieves. Well, it's not true. NICS exists and it's a fact of life. It's not going anywhere anytime soon based on the composition of Congress after the last election. Now, do you want the NRA to have input into the revisions or do you want the politicians to do what they think is best?

John
 
I want the politicians to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution. It is quite clear on this subject and all of this legal-play is Unconstitutional.

The NRA (which I am a member of and shall remain a member of) should be spending their time and my money educating members of congress and the general public of this fact, not helping pass more potential restrictions on my rights.
 
I called and voiced my opposition. Weird, though. When I lived in WA I got used to calling and writing letters to voice my opposition to their anti-gun crap. Feels weird to call the NRA and do the same thing.
 
The NRA (which I am a member of and shall remain a member of) should be spending their time and my money educating members of congress and the general public of this fact, not helping pass more potential restrictions on my rights.
Click to expand...
Always glad to meet another NRA member. Me too. Benefactor, BTW.

There's no threat to your rights in this legislation. If you haven't been "adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective" (a very high standard), you cannot be affected. (And those that have shouldn't be buying guns, right?)

Cho was "adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective", which is why this is on the table. This legislation plugs a big hole in NICS, which is good for all Americans.

It's ridiculous to have an Instant Check System (or ANY check system) that only checks healthy, law-abiding citizens. Not having NICS check mental health records simply allows offenders like Cho to copycat his crime. If the American public becomes convinced this problem can't be solved with NICS (as the Brady campaign is trying to convince them), the legislation THEN turns to further restrict the rights of the law-abiding - us.

When Columbine occurred, there was a strong cry for gun control aimed directly at gun shows. Today, Democrats are much slower to attack gun-owners, listening to NRA. By opposing this legislation, you may be forcing them to their old ways.

We need to let NRA do their job as always. GOA/JPFO's job is fundraising, not serious RKBA lobbying. They have no elections, they are self-appointed lambasters and not taken seriously by lawmakers. Or even gun-owners, which is why they have so few members compared to NRA (millions vs. thousands).

GOA/JPFO want nothing more than to convince you your rights are at threat - it helps their coffers. They don't care if they really ARE at threat; they're happy to create the perception if necessary. Don't fall for it.

Mike
 
which is good for all Americans.
Click to expand...
It's not good for me, thanks.

It's ridiculous to have an Instant Check System (or ANY check system) that only checks healthy, law-abiding citizens.
Click to expand...
I agree. Let's do away with it rather than strengthening it, OK?

GOA/JPFO want nothing more than to convince you your rights are at threat
Click to expand...
Who cares about the GOA/JPFO. You're not arguing with them, you're arguing with us -- trying to convince us that further strengthening restrictions on gun sales is somehow good for us. It's a hard sell, especially when the potential harms you're detailing (another crazy will pass a NICS check and go nuts), in the end, would only result in this same sort of half-cocked "fix."

If this passes, on the other hand, it'll be discussions about limiting private sales (the "gun show loophole" and all) instead. Yay! Let's make that happen 5 years earlier, shall we? I guess from the NRA's perspective, though, that'll be good for the pocketbook. Then they can "compromise" by writing an exception into the law to allow sales between blood relatives, and tell us how good to gun owners they are.
 
There's no threat to your rights in this legislation. If you haven't been "adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective" (a very high standard), you cannot be affected.
Click to expand...

Actually a VERY LOW standard as Mr. Chu's case demonstrates.

He who wishes to remain unnamed, answer this simple question:

WHO was Mr. Chu's legal representative (competent, as required by the lawyer's Rules of Professional Responsibility, in mental health issues) at the hearing before the part-time (a lawyer with no more mental health training than I have - zero) judge at which it was determined that he was a "mental defective" ???

As I said in another thread, the kind of "adjudications" NRA is supporting are those that occur without any legal counsel for the individual and with a 1-2 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 require him to be examined. All of this usually happens BEFORE there is any diagnosis (see Chu's "examination" records posted in another thread). The judge JUST GUESSES (in Va. a part-time judge). It is not a procedure where both sides present experts and, after full exploration of the evidence, a decision is made.

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.

I am a lawyer, the 72-hour hold procedure, what Chu went through, is a kangaroo court.

P. S. Remember that, in 2007, most psychiatrists consider gun ownership alone to be a "sign" of mental illness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
H.R. 297: NICS Improvement Act of 2007...McCarthy at it again!
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
TooTaxed
T
J
  • Locked
Text of H.R.137 Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013
Replies
3
Views
508
Bubba613
B
J
  • Locked
Text of H.R.21: NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013
Replies
6
Views
586
coloradokevin
coloradokevin
J
  • Locked
HR 34: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2013
Replies
2
Views
644
Buck Kramer
B
L
  • Locked
PRO GUN BILL NEEDS YOUR HELP TO PASS ASAP!
2 3
Replies
57
Views
2K
woerm
W
Back
Top