Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is at it again and so is the NRA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Waitone

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
5,406
Location
The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56311

ON CAPITOL HILL
Your doctor could put you on no-gun list
Congress fast-tracks plan to let physicians ban weapons ownership
Posted: June 21, 2007
11:04 p.m. Eastern

By Naomi Laine
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., announcing a provision to allow doctors to ban people from owning guns

The House of Representatives has fast-tracked new legislation to "improve" the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by allowing doctors to now decide who can own firearms.

The proposal, H.R. 2640, was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., in the wake of the April tragedy at Virginia Tech, when a gunman shot and killed more than 30 people, then killed himself.

McCarthy, whose own husband was killed in a random shooting on a commuter train in New York City in 1993, introduced the "NICS Improvement Act," which sailed through the House in three days.

The plan is the first congressional effort to curtail gun ownership rights in a decade, but by being put on the fast track was exempted from the ordinary committee hearings and public scrutiny most proposals are sent through.

(Story continues below)

"Millions of criminal records are not accessible by NICS and millions others are missing critical data," said McCarthy. "Each year, tens of thousands of barred individuals slip through the cracks of the system and gain access to firearms. Simply put, the NICS system must be updated on both the state and federal level."

If the Act passes in the Senate, it would provide grants so states can add the names of criminals to the NICS system, which would label them as unable to own firearms, but it also flags those with medical or psychological issues as unfit to possess a gun.

The plan allows names to be entered into the NICS system based solely on a physician's diagnosis or prescription of a medication: adults who have taken Ritalin and soldiers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder would be classified as mentally ill and given the same opportunity to own firearms as convicted felons: None.

Gun Owners of America is one of only a few organizations alerting consumers to the implications.

"Under this bill, based solely on a diagnosis of a psychiatrist, an American's name could be dumped into the National Criminal Instant Check (NICS) system," said GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, who called the plan "conviction by diagnosis."

The organization, which launched a campaign to lobby the Senate to reject the plan, said the McCarthy plan "dramatically" expands the "dragnet" used to disqualify law-abiding gun buyers.

"So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists," the organization said in a statement on its website.

The legislation requires states to better share records that would disqualify individuals deemed unfit for gun ownership by inputting those names into the FBI’s Instant Criminal Background Check System.

"This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought, 'No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me.' But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys' list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end with the McCarthy bill," the gun owners group continued.

"Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign, Paul Helmke, stated that, 'We're hopeful that now that the NRA has come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill passes [to impose additional gun control],'" said the gun owners.

"Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step," the group said.

The Act is a response to the Virginia Tech tragedy.

Tech student Seung-Hui Cho was not flagged when he purchased guns, although the state of Virginia knew Cho had been ordered to undergo mental health treatment. No evidence indicates that Cho could have been stopped from opening fire on classmates had the new changes been in place at the time of the shooting.

The National Rifle Association has endorsed the plan as a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.
 
Congress has no jurisdiction over what doctors do or do not. All they can do legitimately is establish rules for federal courts. They certainly cannot mandate violation of patient privacy.

Basically, I think the article just WRONG.
 
Big, steaming pile of toro poop.

I'll eat my GLOCK if you can show me in the actual text of the act where this misleading conclusion is justified.

Previously, any involuntary mental commitment disqualified a person. Now, that is not automatically true--a finding of danger to oneself or others must be part of the reason for the commitment.

I don't know why the GOA is promoting this alarmist view, but their credibility has gone down in my mind.

K
 
Maybe GOA is alarmist, but does anybody here seriously dispute that the McCarthy types WANT to do exactly what the article alleges? And more?

The McCarthyites use alarmism with results increasingly favorable to themselves. Is it so important to always take the 'High Road'? Even to the detriment of RKBA? If gun owners aren't willing to get a little dirty and fight back with some alarmism and rhetoric, the frog will soon be boiling. The grabbers have no problem chipping away slowly and methodically. They've been doing it for decades.

Sometimes I think the ROE that we hold ourselves to are hurting us in the long run. Despite CCW and Castle Doctrine lawa, the fight is not going our way. Think about it. To CCW, you have to be on 'The List'. To buy any gun outside a FTF transfer, you get on 'The List'. 4473s anyone?

GOA may be a little kooky, but they at least have the pulse of the grabbers pretty well figured out.
 
Yeah maybe I'm naive, but I don't see how, if Mr. Pratt is correct, that the law could withstand a Constitutional challenge. We Citizens have something called 'Due Process' which is supposed to guarantee us the ability to present evidence on our own behalf before we can be stripped of a Constitutional Liberty.

(Of course, if someone thinks that you might be a security threat, then Due Process doesn't apply to you. But that is another issue.)
 
Isn't it tedious to turn this into yet another GOA vs. NRA thread? If you know where McCarthy and Schumer are headed, why would you not carefully scrutinize and express concern about their every move? Why would you cooperate with or bless anything with their names on it? I will concede that abstract objections are not helpful, but I like the fact that GOA does not trust any of these people. GOA are not slow learners.
 
So then, shouldn't this be a thread about what McCarthy et al WANT to do, rather than about this bill? Alarmism, and pretty rediculous at that. Irresponsible, if you ask me.
 
"Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign, Paul Helmke, stated that, 'We're hopeful that now that the NRA has come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill passes [to impose additional gun control],'"
GOA is not slow learner nor is it a compromiser. I am trying to figure out this bill on my own. But I know this...it was sponsored by the ultimate gun grabber McCarthy along with the turncoat Dingell and it is supported by Schumer, Kennedy, Clinton et al. Also, as noted it is just one more step on the road to their goal to ban guns.
So, I believe it is bad law...guilty by association and I am going to start talking to my Senators.
 
So then, shouldn't this be a thread about what McCarthy et al WANT to do, rather than about this bill? Alarmism, and pretty rediculous at that. Irresponsible, if you ask me.

If that alarmism gets people off their asses and gets them to stop with the 'This legislation is no big deal' BS, then ring the alarm bell.

The AMA is no fan of private firearm ownership. Doctors often ask about guns in the home - an irrelavnat question under any circumstance. IMO, those that think that this legislation is no big deal and that an increase in loony diagnoses won't happen are a bit naive. Or are suffering ostrich syndrome.

I guess it's OK as long as the blueblood with the perfectly clean history gets to keep his double barreled $5000 shotgun for an occasional birdhunt.

Dammit, what part of 'Shall not be infringed' is unclear?

It's time to get back to having the 2nd as the only gun law. There are already laws that govern the use of firearms. Murder and assault have been and always will be illegal. So will reckless endangerment, burglary, robbery, and rape. Enough with the compromises. Death is a fact of life. Last I checked, the death rate is still 100%. I'm not willing to trade liberty for public safety. I am fine with accepting an increased risk to my family an me.

If GOA can stir people to action with their methods, so be it. This slow death of RKBA is getting irritating.
 
Maybe alarmist or wrong, but the next step is to make these rules apply to FTF transactions per one of the other side's campaign e-mails. I'll see if I can find the text...

"It is a reasonable inch, that will be followed by a reasonable foot and within a reasonably short period of time an unreasonable mile will have been traveled."

ETA This e-mail apparently went out after the bill passed:

Victory: Bill That Strengthens Brady Backgrounds Checks Passes U.S. House

Dear tnrobocop,

That’s right! You read it correctly. With your help, we’ve been asking legislators, “What are YOU going to do about gun violence?”

And we got our first BIG answer yesterday, when, by a voice vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2640 to strengthen Brady background checks!!

The bill, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) requires states to automate their lists of convicted criminals and the mentally ill who are prohibited from buying firearms.

It also requires states to report those lists to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that was enacted with passage of the Brady Law.

And now this important bill is moving swiftly to the U.S. Senate and we need your help today to make sure it gets passed.

Please make a generous contribution of $15.00 or more today to help us make this happen.

Surprisingly, the NRA supports the bill. The Virginia Tech shootings were a horrific reminder of the gaps in U.S. gun laws. The gun lobby knew its usual opposition to any and every solution we brought forward would be unacceptable to the American public so it made this concession.

But we know we still have much more to do to keep guns out of the wrong hands and that the gun lobby will oppose us as we move forward with other sensible steps. We will work to push Congress to extend Brady background checks to all gun sales — especially those at gun shows. To do the work ahead, we need your support today to sustain this strong momentum. This is the BEST time for you to make a contribution to help our fight to make Brady background checks stronger ... step-by-step we are making progress.

Show us what YOU’RE going to do to help stop gun violence by making a contribution of $15.00 or more right now.

Thanks for your support! We’ll keep you posted ...

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair
 
They certainly cannot mandate violation of patient privacy.
Very true. As long as the doctors remember they are working for their patients. Lately there is a bit of confusion as most of them are paid by government programs or insurance companies. Some have to pinch themselves to remember who the actual customer is.

The American Rifleman has another deal to worry about. Apparently the anti american Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, has introduced a thing that would allow the attorney general to bar gun sales to anybody "reasonably suspected" of terrorist ties. He claims the Attorney General approves of this.
The LaPierre piece indicates that due process is suspended what with no criminal adjudication made.
Even subtracting out the fund raising hyperbole, this is a fairly scary possibility.
 
I have to agree with Daniel T. I'm a member of the GOA and from what I'm seeing lately do not plan to renew. I'll find another pro 2A group to support.

PS: I am also a member of the NRA
 
We have *nothing* to gain by adopting the same hysterical, misleading, misrepresenting, tactics that our opposition uses.

This act does NOT do what that article implies it does. State otherwise to your legislators and they will only think you are a knee-jerking, believe-anything, idiot.

Read the damn act yourself.

K
 
Your doctor could put you on no-gun list
Congress fast-tracks plan to let physicians ban weapons ownership

Reference the text of the bill that supports that conclusion.

K
 
:banghead:
As I read through this thread and look at the ages of those who post on both sides of the issue I just shake my head. Let me disabuse you of the notion that recorded history began when the alarm went off this morning.
Does anyone remember the Social Security Act? Probably not, though some of you may have read about it. One of the biggest and most hard-fought battles in the passage of the act was over the issue of using the Social Security number as an identifier. In fact, the Act was pretty well doomed to failure until an amendment was introduced and passed to make it unlawful to ask for a person's SS# except for tax purposes.
Times have changed now and so have the Social Security laws. It's almost impossible to function in society these days without your government ID number.
Now then, all you young guys (under 70:D) who are supporting this latest abortion can rest easily since it's unlikely it will have any effect on you or your gun rights. But what about your kids or their kids? Congress will have forty or fifty years to add "reasonable" amendments to the original bill and voila!, your great grandkids will have their entire medical histories recorded on the chip embedded in their arms.
That's ok though, because the NRA is in favor of enforcing the laws already on the books.:rolleyes: As I remember, the NRA was in favor of NFA34 too - and GCA68 - and the Brady Bill - and now this.
Don't worry, the chip won't hurt much.
 
IF (and that's a big if) this is in fact accurate, it would conflict with those FERPA rights that were legislated a few years back. Heck, at my doctors' offices, they now call you by first name only, or first name and last initial, in order to guarantee privacy. How on earth would that square with doctors having input into the NICS?

I call BS on this one.

Springmom
 
To be committed or judged a danger requires an adversarial proceeding before a judge, not just some docs desire.
Even Cho had a public defender at his hearing.
 
They certainly cannot mandate violation of patient privacy.

Indeed, doing so would force doctors to violate a dozen federal and state laws, not to mention their own oaths. I'd like to see the text of this law.
 
The following are excerpts compiled from statements issued by the NRA and GOA with regard to proposed "enhancements" to NICS.

=================
Gun Owners of America
=================

"This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought, 'No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me.' But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys' list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end with the McCarthy bill," the gun owners group continued.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56311

=================
NRA
=================

Cover story form America's 1st Freedom, July 2007
Schizomedia by James O.E. Norell

Excerpt:

The Nuts and Bolts of S. 1237

Introduced in April, S. 1237 gives the U.S. attorney general total discretionary power to make firearm possession or ammunition possession a felony for any individual American subjectively and secretly decreed by the attorney general to be "appropriately suspected" of even the most remote connection to undefined "terrorism." And all of this can be done by a simple, secret stroke of the pen.

Though it doesn't appear in the black letter of the legislation, such an edict by an attorney general -- arbitrarily branding a citizen to be a "prohibited person" -- is called a 'dangerous terrorist determination' in the 'analysis' that accompanied the draft of Lautenberg's bill. And you can bet that the term 'dangerous terrorist' will find its way into federal regulations implementing the Gonzales/Lautenberg legislation if it is ever enacted into law."

=================
Analysis
=================

The NRA support "enhancements" to NICS by adding in the names of additional people who are prohibited on the basis of their mental status. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3112 Through various outlets NRA has put out information which suggests that GOA is lying about the implications of NRA's support for "enhancements" to NICS. But compare their claims about GOA's analysis with their very own analysis of Attorney General Gonzalez's proposed "enhancements" to NICS:

"Though it doesn't appear in the black letter of the legislation, such an edict by an attorney general -- arbitrarily branding a citizen to be a "prohibited person" -- is called a 'dangerous terrorist determination' in the 'analysis' that accompanied the draft of Lautenberg's bill. And you can bet that the term 'dangerous terrorist' will find its way into federal regulations implementing the Gonzales/Lautenberg legislation if it is ever enacted into law."

==================================
Good reason to keep NRA membership
==================================

I was planning to dump my membership, but it seems useful to continue to receive their publications to identify situations in which the NRA is suffering from "Schizomedia" (their term).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top