• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

GOA Alert asks for maximum help to find more gun owners to help thwart McCarthy bill

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Compromisers On Capitol Hill Reviving Brady Expansion Again
-- Your hard work in bottling up this bill is about to be undone


Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

"[The] more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America,... has long
opposed McCarthy's background-check bill." -- The Washington Post,
June 9, 2007

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

While the entire nation was focused on the immigration bill the past
couple of weeks, the gremlins on Capitol Hill were finalizing a
"compromise" on gun control legislation.

The good news is that your tremendous outpouring of opposition to
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's Brady enhancement (HR 297) has sent a strong
signal to Capitol Hill that this bill is unacceptable as written.
The bad news is that there are some seemingly pro-gun Congressmen who
are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did
something about Virginia Tech.

So what's going on?

On Saturday, The Washington Post reported [ see
http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn ] that both the Democrats and the NRA
leadership had reached a "deal" on legislation similar to the
McCarthy bill. This "deal" involves a new bill that has been
introduced by Rep. McCarthy (HR 2640) -- a bill that has not yet been
posted on the Thomas legislative service. While all the legislative
particulars are not yet available, one thing is clear: it is, as
reported by the Post, a deal with Democrats. And it involves
legislation introduced by the most anti-gun member of the House, Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).

The Post says that, under the new language, the federal government
would pay (that is, spend taxpayers' money) to help the states send
more names of individual Americans to the FBI for inclusion in the
background check system. If a state fails to do this, then the feds
could cut various law enforcement grants to that state. In essence,
this is a restatement of what the original McCarthy bill does. The
states will be bribed (again, with your money) to send more names,
many of them innocent gun owners, to the FBI in West Virginia -- and
perhaps lots of other personal information on you as well.

Under the terms of this compromise, the Post says, "individuals with
minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have
their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000
military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans
Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a
chance to clean their records."

Oh really? The Brady law already contains a procedure for cleaning
up records. But it hasn't worked for the 83,000 veterans that are
currently prohibited from buying guns. Gun Owners of America is
aware of many people who have tried to invoke this procedure in the
Brady Law, only to get the run around -- and a form letter -- from
the FBI. The simple truth is that the FBI and the BATFE think the
83,000 veterans, and many other law-abiding Americans, should be in
the NICS system.

After all, that's what federal regulations decree. Unless these regs
are changed, Congress can create as many redundant procedures for
cleaning up these records as it wants, but the bottom line is, there
is nothing that will force the FBI to scrub gun owners' name from the
NICS system.

Not only that, there is a Schumer amendment in federal law which
prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are
barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed,
then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for
inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a
disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.

Moreover, will gun owners who are currently being denied the ability
to purchase firearms -- such as the military veterans who have
suffered from post-traumatic stress -- be recompensed in any way for
their efforts to "clean their records"? They will, no doubt, have to
spend thousands of dollars going to a shrink for a positive
recommendation, for hiring lawyers to take their case to court, etc.

And this is not to mention the fact that this procedure turns our
whole legal system on its head. Americans are presumed innocent
until PROVEN guilty. But these brave souls, who risked their lives
defending our country, were denied the right to bear arms because of
a mental illness "loophole" in the law. Their names were added to
the prohibited purchasers' list in West Virginia without any due
process, without any trial by jury... no, their names were just added
by executive fiat. They were unilaterally, and unconstitutionally,
added into the NICS system by the Clinton administration. And now
the burden of proof is ON THEM to prove their innocence. Isn't that
backwards?

One wonders if these military veterans will be any more successful in
getting back their gun rights than the gun owners in New Orleans who
tried to get back their firearms which were confiscated in the wake
of Hurricane Katrina. (Gun owners in the Big Easy have found it very
difficult to prove their case and get their guns back, even though
the courts have ruled that the police acted improperly in
confiscating their firearms.) But isn't that the problem when honest
people are thrust into the position of PROVING their innocence to the
government, rather than vice-versa.

The fact is, current federal law -- combined with BATFE's
interpretations of that law -- will make it very unlikely that any
court will restore the Second Amendment rights of those 83,000
veterans.

Finally, the Post article also says the "federal government would be
permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for
their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already
won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith
amendment into law.

GOA had to overcome opposition from certain pro-gun groups to help
Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduce and push his language as an
amendment to an appropriations bill. The Smith amendment barred the
FBI from taxing gun buyers, something which the Clinton
administration was considering doing.

GOA won the vote in the Senate with a veto-proof majority and the
Smith amendment has been law ever since. But now we're being told
that we need to swallow McCarthy's poison pill so that the Smith
amendment -- which is currently law -- will stay on the books. Huh?!

ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun
organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you
contact your representative immediately. Please take action today
and spread the word about HR 2640! We need all the help we can get.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
pre-written e-mail message. You can call your Representative at
202-225-3121, or you can call your Representative toll-free at
1-877-762-8762.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative:

Gun Owners of America tells me there is a compromise brewing on
McCarthy's Brady expansion legislation -- the recently introduced HR
2640. I want you to know that grassroots gun owners OPPOSE this
bill.

All the compromises on the table continue to infringe upon the Second
Amendment. Please understand that no new gun control whatsoever is
acceptable... period.

If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then
consider this:

"The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months
following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran
forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by
the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be
permanently removed from that system."

Sincerely,

****************************

New Shocking DVD!

"The Gang," subtitled How A Government Agency Uses The Law To Destroy
Your Rights And Freedoms, is a DVD that details how the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has grown from a
tiny cell to a cancer that sucks a billion dollars a year from
taxpayers for the harassment of gun owners. BATFE -- The Gang -- has
no constitutional authority. It has no rules, and no congressional
oversight that holds it accountable.

A highly professional production from Jews for Preservation of
Firearms Ownership, the DVD has outraged viewers who were not
sympathetic to gun ownership and convinced them that BATFE has to go.
Finally, America can see what this increasingly rogue agency is
doing. "The Gang" could end the career of America's Gestapo if enough
people see it. Now available through Gun Owners Foundation at just
$25.

Also produced by JPFO: Innocents Betrayed. This DVD was shown by a
Philadelphia social studies teacher to all of his classes. It turned
the students completely around, even though they were being taught
gun control in all their other classes. Extensively documents that
all 20th century genocides were preceded by firearms registration and
confiscation.

Please see http://www.gunowners.com/resource.htm to order either or
both of these DVDs (and check out our ongoing book sale at the same
time).
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

Good points, but a few questions:

I do not see folks on the PRTK&BA side vigorously advocating the repeal of the 1968 law prohibiting persons who have been adjudicated dangerous as a result of mental illness from owning guns.

Does the gun rights sideoppose ALL efforts to make this law work better?

(I confess that I have not looked at the bill, and would appreciate it if somebody would post a link.)

It could be amended on the Senate side. What if it could be amended to include provisions that create an administrative review procedure for inclusion in the database; impose deadlines for administrative reviews of inclusion; permit judicial review; and provide for the recovery of attorneys fees from the government if there is a successful judicial review along the lines of 42 USC 1988 or the Equal Access to Justice Act?

Would that fix it?

Would it need more to fix it?

Or is the point that ALL gun legislation should be subverted and NO gun legislation should ever be fixed? That we fight because any legislation is the "thin end of the wedge," "camel's nose under the tent," or whatever.

The Donkey
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
Good points, but a few questions:

I do not see folks on the PRTK&BA side vigorously advocating the repeal of the 1968 law prohibiting persons who have been adjudicated dangerous as a result of mental illness from owning guns.

Does the gun rights sideoppose ALL efforts to make this law work better?

(I confess that I have not looked at the bill, and would appreciate it if somebody would post a link.)

It could be amended on the Senate side. What if it could be amended to include provisions that create an administrative review procedure for inclusion in the database; impose deadlines for administrative reviews of inclusion; permit judicial review; and provide for the recovery of attorneys fees from the government if there is a successful judicial review along the lines of 42 USC 1988 or the Equal Access to Justice Act?

Would that fix it?

Would it need more to fix it?

Or is the point that ALL gun legislation should be subverted and NO gun legislation should ever be fixed? That we fight because any legislation is the "thin end of the wedge," "camel's nose under the tent," or whatever.

The Donkey

Donkey - I think the main point GOA and othersobject tois the real focus of the bill - to bring into NICS ALL the state records of crimes of misdemeanor domestic violence - I for one do not think that a misdemeanor mistake should create a lifetime gun ban.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

Mike wrote:
Donkey - I think the main point GOA and othersobject tois the real focus of the bill - to bring into NICS ALL the state records of crimes of misdemeanor domestic violence - I for one do not think that a misdemeanor mistake should create a lifetime gun ban.

So the real problem then are provisions of existing law which includes persons convicted of misdemeanor DV charges within the list of persons prohibited from purchasing? GOA and othersare concerned that a misdemeanor conviction should not lead to a lifetime purchase ban -- but wants to accomplish this by preserving technical barriers to enforcement of the law through instant check -- correct?

There are clearly privacy concerns related to a nationwide database of minor infractions, but I had thought we had crossed the Rubicon on that already. Also DVconvictions involvea wide range of behaviors:some DV cases may present a more compelling case for extensive restrictions than others.

Would amendments directly limiting theexistingDV ban in some way result in an acceptable bill? What would be the modification?

Donk
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Edited to remove question I figured out the answer to. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

I agree with Mike, no DV convictions unless they are felonies.

Worse, psychiatry and psychology are notoriously incompetent. They can't agree amongst themselves on diagnoses, are on record saying they don't know the cause of mental illnes, decide by committee vote which "disorder" to include in their industry manual, the DSM, and when a "disorder" is added to the DSM, they conveniently assign it a number for insurance billing. The last thing we need is for these professions to have a say in who loses their right to self-defense. Any such adjudication needs to be by a judge based on presentation of facts excluding any pseudo-scientific psychiatric mumbo-jumbo.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Citizen wrote:
I agree with Mike, no DV convictions unless they are felonies.

Worse, psychiatry and psychology are notoriously incompetent. They can't agree amongst themselves on diagnoses, are on record saying they don't know the cause of mental illnes, decide by committee vote which "disorder" to include in their industry manual, the DSM, and when a "disorder" is added to the DSM, they conveniently assign it a number for insurance billing. The last thing we need is for these professions to have a say in who loses their right to self-defense. Any such adjudication needs to be by a judge based on presentation of facts excluding any pseudo-scientific psychiatric mumbo-jumbo.
Right on. Not too long ago being gay or having long hair and a scruffy beard was considered a mental disorder. Can you imagine denying a firearm purchase for something like that?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Edit tomy above post:

Oh, I almost forgot. I said psych -iatry and -ology are incompetent.When was the last time you heard of some one being cured? If they can cure mental illness, whyarethereasylums with people in them for years or life? Why would there be a concern aboutif a commitment order wasstill in force? Wouldn't it be something more like,"Whencured, and the order is lifted, rights arerestored?"Which really means there wouldbe no real concern.The whole reason thisis an issue withus is exactly because they cannot cure people. If they could, it would be a simple matter of check in, get cured, check out, get your gunsback.
 
Top