MicroBalrog
member
TWO FACES OF THE NRA
By Captain Dennis Jackson
Armed Females of America, Sierra Times, KeepAndBearArms.com and other web sites have recently published a number of articles that call attention to the fact that the NRA is not the friend of the gun owners that most gun owners think they are. I believe that the image most gun owners have of the NRA is fueled by the fact that the anti-rights enthusiasts demonize the NRA by their mendacious description of the NRA as “extremists.â€
While speaking with a friend from California a few days ago, he told me that he donates to the NRA all the time, because they are the only ones doing anything to fight the gun laws in California. When I asked what they had done, he didn’t have an answer.
The organization Citizens of America [now defunct] did more to stem the tide of these oppressive gun laws in California, and raise awareness of the issue, than the NRA has ever done. If your donations to the NRA aren’t being used by the NRA to fight oppressive laws like the California ammo tax, I mean fee, and the proposed ban on .50 caliber rifles, your donations to these smaller organizations may strengthen their message and keep them in business long enough to really make a difference.
In the meantime, California still has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Would these laws be more restrictive if the NRA did not have a presence in the State? How could they?
Our fight is not necessarily in the state legislatures, or in Washington, D.C. Our fight is winning the hearts and minds of American gun owners. There are far too many gun owners who accept the notion that some Second Amendment restrictions are okay and they accept that each new gun law is somehow reasonable. Why is that?
And all they need to do to fulfill their obligation as gun owners, to hold back the avalanche of new gun laws, is make a donation a couple times a year to the NRA.
Some die-hard NRA apologists have complained that being critical of the NRA gives ammunition to our enemies on the other side of the issue and makes gun owners appear fragmented and confused.
The contrary is true. If the anti-rights enthusiasts see a growing legion of gun owners with a more extreme view than the NRA becoming more vocal and less compromising than the NRA, they will begin losing their political power and media limelight.
Newsday.com recently reported that the NRA has endorsed the "Our Lady of Peace Act" sponsored by anti-gun extremists New York Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Carolyn McCarthy.
This is another potentially intrusive gun law that will allow the camels nose farther under the tent and will require the states to update their information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System under the threat of loss of federal funds. The states will be required to provide information on domestic restraining orders, criminal records and on those with mental illnesses.
So far, the only opposition to this bill comes from mental health professionals who argue that the proposed law is too broad and who worry about the privacy of those who are denied weapons based on having a documented record of mental illness.
The National Association of Social Workers, although in favor of restrictions on gun ownership, especially for handguns and “assault†weapons, fear that the bill promotes stigmatization of Americans suffering from mental illnesses who are not a violent threat to society.
McCarthy said there would be no reason given for denying the purchase of a gun. "The privacy issue is kept in place. I happen to think that's important," she said.
Well Carolyn I have news for you. I don’t need to beg my government for their permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right. How does a purchaser know that you or your cronies are not arbitrarily rejecting gun purchases through deceptive means, or placing bureaucratic roadblocks on purchases?
And since there is no way that anyone can predict the future behavior of another human, or when they are going to “snapâ€, suggests a more sinister reason behind these victimization laws. Our best defense against violence is preparation, the proper tools and training…NOT MORE LAWS!
How do we know that the BATF definitions of mental illness aren’t going to be broadened to include something as common as marriage counseling? After all if there are problems with a relationship it just might lead to violence.
And proponents of this law are not considering the potential chilling effect it might have on persons in need of medical attention for anxiety, depression or any number of disorders, which at this time are not prohibiting.
Let us look at how the BATF defines mental illness: “Persons Who Have Been Adjudicated as Mental Defectives or Been Committed to a Mental Institution.â€
BATF definitions:
Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case. Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other legal authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily.
The term includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as drug use.
The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. Mental institution. Includes mental health facilities, mental hospitals, sanitariums, psychiatric facilities, and other facilities that provide diagnoses by licensed professionals of mental retardation or mental illness, including a psychiatric ward in a general hospital.
As you can see, and as it always is in government, there is wiggle room written into the rules. The BATF, as a Federal law enforcement agency, writes their own definitions and the rules they enforce. It wouldn’t hurt to periodically review the BATF Notices of Proposed Rulemaking as published within the Federal Register and posted on the BATF web site. This way you will be aware of proposed rules and have a chance to comment on changes that effect your firearm ownership.
The Federal Aviation Administration is another example. The FAA enforces the rules they write! For example, Airline pilots are required by the FAA to retire before they reach their 60th birthday. This is an arbitrary and discriminatory rule (not law) that has no basis in medical facts. Nor is there evidence that airline pilots become less safe the closer they are to age 60. This rule exists because of pressure from the major pilot unions, not because mandatory retirement is a good thing for the traveling public. And this rule has never been given congressional sanction.
We all know how the American Medical Association feels about gun ownership. You can expect the AMA to encourage their members to forward names of their patients to be included in the NICS system for a variety of very subjective reasons. And since the law protects your privacy, you will never know until you are prohibited from making a purchase. Good luck to you in tracking down and challenging what they have put in your record.
There is, and always has been, “felony creep†in the list of prohibited possessors, and it varies from state to state. More and more Americans can expect to find that their misdemeanor has now been deemed a “felony†for the purpose of prohibiting them from owning firearms.
We can expect the same experience from the "Our Lady of Peace Act" as it relates to current prohibited mental defectives. How long will it be before the BATF responds to pressure from the gun control enthusiasts and begins including disorders and conditions not now prohibited by their rules? Will we then expect the NRA to step forward to put a stop to a law that they endorsed? Or should they oppose it now?
As a supporter of gun rights, doesn’t it concern you that NRA spokesman Ted Novin said automating records of the mentally ill is "a step in the right direction� “We were pleased that under John Dingell's leadership, members of Congress, like Carolyn McCarthy, finally realized that the NRA was right all along and we need to assure that NICS works properly," he said.
As the NRA states on their web site, “For 130 years the National Rifle Association of America has stood in opposition to all who step-by-step would reduce the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a privilege granted by those who govern. The NRA continues to fight against those who would dictate that American citizens should seek police permission to exercise their constitutional rights.â€
Shouldn’t we be more than a little concerned that the NRA makes a claim like this, and at the same time endorses legislation that places limitations on our individual right to own firearms?
Under the provisions of the "Our Lady of Peace Act", for their ambiguous behavior, the NRA should be adjudicated as schizophrenic by American gun owners and placed in the status of being irrelevant as a voice for gun ownership.
E-mail Captain Jackson
Captain Dennis Jackson is a pilot for a major US airline, certified firearms instructor and senior advisor to Armed Females of America.
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/featuredwriter/twofaces.htm
By Captain Dennis Jackson
Armed Females of America, Sierra Times, KeepAndBearArms.com and other web sites have recently published a number of articles that call attention to the fact that the NRA is not the friend of the gun owners that most gun owners think they are. I believe that the image most gun owners have of the NRA is fueled by the fact that the anti-rights enthusiasts demonize the NRA by their mendacious description of the NRA as “extremists.â€
While speaking with a friend from California a few days ago, he told me that he donates to the NRA all the time, because they are the only ones doing anything to fight the gun laws in California. When I asked what they had done, he didn’t have an answer.
The organization Citizens of America [now defunct] did more to stem the tide of these oppressive gun laws in California, and raise awareness of the issue, than the NRA has ever done. If your donations to the NRA aren’t being used by the NRA to fight oppressive laws like the California ammo tax, I mean fee, and the proposed ban on .50 caliber rifles, your donations to these smaller organizations may strengthen their message and keep them in business long enough to really make a difference.
In the meantime, California still has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Would these laws be more restrictive if the NRA did not have a presence in the State? How could they?
Our fight is not necessarily in the state legislatures, or in Washington, D.C. Our fight is winning the hearts and minds of American gun owners. There are far too many gun owners who accept the notion that some Second Amendment restrictions are okay and they accept that each new gun law is somehow reasonable. Why is that?
And all they need to do to fulfill their obligation as gun owners, to hold back the avalanche of new gun laws, is make a donation a couple times a year to the NRA.
Some die-hard NRA apologists have complained that being critical of the NRA gives ammunition to our enemies on the other side of the issue and makes gun owners appear fragmented and confused.
The contrary is true. If the anti-rights enthusiasts see a growing legion of gun owners with a more extreme view than the NRA becoming more vocal and less compromising than the NRA, they will begin losing their political power and media limelight.
Newsday.com recently reported that the NRA has endorsed the "Our Lady of Peace Act" sponsored by anti-gun extremists New York Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Carolyn McCarthy.
This is another potentially intrusive gun law that will allow the camels nose farther under the tent and will require the states to update their information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System under the threat of loss of federal funds. The states will be required to provide information on domestic restraining orders, criminal records and on those with mental illnesses.
So far, the only opposition to this bill comes from mental health professionals who argue that the proposed law is too broad and who worry about the privacy of those who are denied weapons based on having a documented record of mental illness.
The National Association of Social Workers, although in favor of restrictions on gun ownership, especially for handguns and “assault†weapons, fear that the bill promotes stigmatization of Americans suffering from mental illnesses who are not a violent threat to society.
McCarthy said there would be no reason given for denying the purchase of a gun. "The privacy issue is kept in place. I happen to think that's important," she said.
Well Carolyn I have news for you. I don’t need to beg my government for their permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right. How does a purchaser know that you or your cronies are not arbitrarily rejecting gun purchases through deceptive means, or placing bureaucratic roadblocks on purchases?
And since there is no way that anyone can predict the future behavior of another human, or when they are going to “snapâ€, suggests a more sinister reason behind these victimization laws. Our best defense against violence is preparation, the proper tools and training…NOT MORE LAWS!
How do we know that the BATF definitions of mental illness aren’t going to be broadened to include something as common as marriage counseling? After all if there are problems with a relationship it just might lead to violence.
And proponents of this law are not considering the potential chilling effect it might have on persons in need of medical attention for anxiety, depression or any number of disorders, which at this time are not prohibiting.
Let us look at how the BATF defines mental illness: “Persons Who Have Been Adjudicated as Mental Defectives or Been Committed to a Mental Institution.â€
BATF definitions:
Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case. Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other legal authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily.
The term includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as drug use.
The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. Mental institution. Includes mental health facilities, mental hospitals, sanitariums, psychiatric facilities, and other facilities that provide diagnoses by licensed professionals of mental retardation or mental illness, including a psychiatric ward in a general hospital.
As you can see, and as it always is in government, there is wiggle room written into the rules. The BATF, as a Federal law enforcement agency, writes their own definitions and the rules they enforce. It wouldn’t hurt to periodically review the BATF Notices of Proposed Rulemaking as published within the Federal Register and posted on the BATF web site. This way you will be aware of proposed rules and have a chance to comment on changes that effect your firearm ownership.
The Federal Aviation Administration is another example. The FAA enforces the rules they write! For example, Airline pilots are required by the FAA to retire before they reach their 60th birthday. This is an arbitrary and discriminatory rule (not law) that has no basis in medical facts. Nor is there evidence that airline pilots become less safe the closer they are to age 60. This rule exists because of pressure from the major pilot unions, not because mandatory retirement is a good thing for the traveling public. And this rule has never been given congressional sanction.
We all know how the American Medical Association feels about gun ownership. You can expect the AMA to encourage their members to forward names of their patients to be included in the NICS system for a variety of very subjective reasons. And since the law protects your privacy, you will never know until you are prohibited from making a purchase. Good luck to you in tracking down and challenging what they have put in your record.
There is, and always has been, “felony creep†in the list of prohibited possessors, and it varies from state to state. More and more Americans can expect to find that their misdemeanor has now been deemed a “felony†for the purpose of prohibiting them from owning firearms.
We can expect the same experience from the "Our Lady of Peace Act" as it relates to current prohibited mental defectives. How long will it be before the BATF responds to pressure from the gun control enthusiasts and begins including disorders and conditions not now prohibited by their rules? Will we then expect the NRA to step forward to put a stop to a law that they endorsed? Or should they oppose it now?
As a supporter of gun rights, doesn’t it concern you that NRA spokesman Ted Novin said automating records of the mentally ill is "a step in the right direction� “We were pleased that under John Dingell's leadership, members of Congress, like Carolyn McCarthy, finally realized that the NRA was right all along and we need to assure that NICS works properly," he said.
As the NRA states on their web site, “For 130 years the National Rifle Association of America has stood in opposition to all who step-by-step would reduce the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a privilege granted by those who govern. The NRA continues to fight against those who would dictate that American citizens should seek police permission to exercise their constitutional rights.â€
Shouldn’t we be more than a little concerned that the NRA makes a claim like this, and at the same time endorses legislation that places limitations on our individual right to own firearms?
Under the provisions of the "Our Lady of Peace Act", for their ambiguous behavior, the NRA should be adjudicated as schizophrenic by American gun owners and placed in the status of being irrelevant as a voice for gun ownership.
E-mail Captain Jackson
Captain Dennis Jackson is a pilot for a major US airline, certified firearms instructor and senior advisor to Armed Females of America.
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/featuredwriter/twofaces.htm