Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Many NRA Members "Confused" by Proposed Gun Bill

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Featu...?InfoNo=020494

    The swift passage of a gun-ban bill in the U.S. House, without committee hearings, floor debate or a recorded vote and possibly without even a quorum present, has NRA members nationwide asking what happened.

    In a nationally released memo addressing the confusion, the NRA said this is "nothing unusual," further confusing their members.

    Swiftly adopting a gun-control measure on a voice vote has not occurred in at least fifteen years, if ever, according to Bloomfield Press, the largest publisher of gun-law books in the country. http://www.gunlaws.com

    The NRA, long considered a feared and powerful gun-rights lobby, allied itself with the most ardent anti-gun-rights forces in the House to quickly push through a bill that would massively increase the NICS Index -- the database of people who cannot pass an FBI background check for purchase of a firearm.

    Psychiatrists and doctors would have an increased role in determining who gets on or off the list. The medical community has in the past exhibited pronounced anti-gun behaviors, bordering in some cases on hoplophobia, a morbid fear of weapons of any kind.

    The action was taken during the morning "Suspension Calendar," normally reserved for "non-controversial" bills. Its use to slip through an expansion of gun control is highly irregular, with no similar action known in the past. The bill is HR 2640, "The NICS Improvement Act," posted here: http://www.gunlaws.com/DHSinNICS.htm

    No one knows how many of the 21 million records Congress seeks will truly identify Americans who lack the legal right to have a firearm. The effect on guns already owned by people in the 21 million records seems clear -- they would be subject to confiscation. At least, a transfer of ownership seems a likely requirement if the law is enacted and those people's names are poured into the list. There are no plans to notify these people.

    An error rate of just one-tenth of one percent (very low for government work) would mean that 21,000 Americans will have their rights unjustly denied if the bill becomes law. These people will then be forced to line up and go through an arduous, time-consuming, complex and expensive process to prove their innocence. The government is not required to cooperate, though the law does provide a framework for getting rights restored, at NRA's insistence. (The bill says agencies "shall" act to keep records accurate, but nothing happens if they don't; no time frames for corrections are specified.)

    News reports have shed no light on the accuracy or validity of the impending additions, or any preparations to handle a flood of appeals. An error rate of 1% would equal 2.1 million false "guilty" verdicts.

    The existing list of criminals, illegal aliens and other "prohibited possessors" is 3,960,981 after 11 years of careful development (as of Dec. 31, 2005). Under the proposed law, at one fell swoop, it will grow to five times its current size. More than ten percent of American adults would be barred from exercising the fundamental civil right to arms. The NRA points out that Americans who have the right medical disabilities do belong on the list.

    "It's scary, when both the main defender of this civil right and the enemies of that right combine and work to deny rights to so many people at once," said an insider who prefers to remain anonymous. "Are the records accurate? Can people unjustly accused swiftly restore their rights and reclaim their place in society? Shouldn't we check the validity before we summarily add so many people to the list, and not just add them and let the innocent suffer? Why are the NRA and anti-gun Democrats trying to move so fast?" Carefully checking 21 million people's records would of course slow down the process, and delay entering all the names.

    Emails, blogs and chat rooms are filled with such questions, even as mainstream news reports praise "the first significant gun-control legislation in a decade," ignoring a dozen gun bills Congress has passed in the last ten years. Despite the jubilant mainstream headlines, the NRA memo says this is "NOT GUN CONTROL!" (emphasis theirs). After reading the bill, it certainly seems accurate to call it gun control, a term now used almost exclusively to refer to gun bans of one sort or another. I

    n a related but unreported development, experts note that the expanded NICS system, if combined with information from the Real ID Act, could provide a centralized federal monitoring facility for the entire population, under the guise of crime control. Privacy advocates have expressed concern over the possibility, though many officials see this as a good thing.

    The Brady law, ostensibly to control handgun sales, initiated the entire project in 1993, at a cost of $250 million, plus subsequent allocations. The new bill adds $375 million per year for the next three years. In a 1998 surprise, the Brady Handgun law was automatically expanded to include all firearms, not just handguns.

    The new law has many built-in protective requirements, and methods of appeal for those wrongly accused, but provides no punishment of government agents who fail to comply or to keep records accurately, placing the effectiveness of those safeguards in doubt. The Justice Dept. is supposed to give Congress a list of all the agencies that are not complying, once a year. In an odd requirement of unknown usefulness, various mental health institutions and providers are given power to certify former mental cases as now qualified to have guns.

    In the past, federal and state officials have been known to stonewall, delay, deceive and claim impotence when confronted with requests to have rights restored to the innocent, or to the reformed. Congress has refused to fund such reviews, which are required by law, since 1992, effectively eliminating a person's chance for due process.

    In a copyrighted story on 6/21/07, WorldNetDaily said:

    "Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., announcing a provision to allow doctors to ban people from owning guns... 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." Simple diagnosis or medical prescription does not appear to be in the bill as grounds for a ban. Ritalin and PTSD are not listed at the present time, though critics of the measure are concerned that such things could change. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

    Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt called the scheme, "conviction by diagnosis," which is true in cases where a person is officially deemed dangerous and other conditions are met. GOA is a national gun rights group opposing the measure. Pratt points out that many people will be taken by surprise when they try to buy a firearm and learn they have been unknowingly lumped into a category with murderers, rapists and illegal aliens. http://www.gunowners.org

    A simple question for the NRA apologists here on OpenCarry.org, does the NRA act to expand open carry?

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    This is NOT Great for the Person that has an ANTI-GUN Activist Doctor.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    If conviction by diagnoses is now acceptable, what is the current diagnosis for the state of our nation?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    ...what is the current diagnosis for the state of our nation?
    ISTR that 'doctor shopping' for agreeable diagnoses is a crime, for some anyway. I imagine Doctor Nasty, RA would make a very different diagnosis and prescription than one less in tune with 'the powers that be.'

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    In paragraph # 7 Mr. Pratt said "There are no plans to notify these people."
    Persons would first be court ordered to a phyic evaluation, found to be a danger to self or others then back to court
    before a judge to be pronounced a danger, prior to showing up in the NICS.

    In paragraph # 18 Mr. Pratt states that peopleThe 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."
    That is totally FALSE, I just explained how the procedure works.
    Mr. Pratt then goes on to say "Simple diagnosis or medical prescription does not appear to be in the bill as grounds for a ban. Ritalin and PTSD are not listed at the present time, though critics of the measure are concerned that such things could change."
    Didn't we just read that this is what the bill would do!
    Hard to keep the story straight when your winging it !

    In paragraph # 19 Mr. Pratt said "Pratt points out that many people will be taken by surprise when they try to buy a firearm and learn they have been unknowingly lumped into a category with murderers, rapists and illegal aliens."
    If I have been court ordered for a psyc evaluation,had a DR tell me that I am a danger and then went before a judge and he agreed,I really don't think I would
    be surprised !

    In paragraph # 16 Mr. Pratt said "In the past, federal and state officials have been known to stonewall, delay, deceive and claim impotence when confronted with requests to have rights restored to the innocent, or to the reformed. Congress has refused to fund such reviews, which are required by law, since 1992, effectively eliminating a person's chance for due process.
    I was wondering what Mr. Pratt and the GOA had put on the table to help correct this problem?

    Remember that one of the Clinton Administration's last acts was to force the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans' family members to be added to a "prohibited" list. H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored. H.R. 2640 will also require all participating federal or state agencies to establish "relief from disability" programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.

    The NRA got involved in a piece of legislation that was going through Congress with or without any involvement from a gun-rights group. The NRA stepped in and is giving our brave young men and women a way to restore there rights if they had psyc issues after coming home from combat.
    Mr. Pratt and the GOA want to sit on the sideline and criticize.

    Like I had asked earlier, " What did the GOA have to offer ?? " If they had a better idea you can damn sure bet that they would be flaunting it.

    My dad used to say " If you have to cut somebody down to make yourself look good,,,chances are you don't have a whole hell of a lot to offer "
    He also used to say " lead, fallow or get the hell out of the way!

    I see no leadership with Mr. Pratt, I see liberal political tactics of misinformation and twisting facts to press his point of view. If you have to do that to make your point, maybe your point isn't as valid as you would like to think. and then sit back and criticize the people that are doing something!



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    Excuse, but who isGOA? What legislation have they helped move forward? I'm sorry but I can't say I've ever heardof them doing anything.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:

    "It's scary, when both the main defender of this civil right and the enemies of that right combine and work to deny rights to so many people at once," said an insider who prefers to remain anonymous. "Are the records accurate? Can people unjustly accused swiftly restore their rights and reclaim their place in society? Shouldn't we check the validity before we summarily add so many people to the list, and not just add them and let the innocent suffer? Why are the NRA and anti-gun Democrats trying to move so fast?" Carefully checking 21 million people's records would of course slow down the process, and delay entering all the names.

    An insider of what? I love "anonymous" "insiders" that give a viewpoint. They're so reliable.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    GOA is the Gun Owners of America, but I am happy to say that they do not speak for me, an enthusiastic owner for decades now. I find Mr. Pratt to be full of hyperbolic fury about any and all regulation of firearms, at least some of which I find to be reasonable (the regulation, not the hyperbole). The NICS expansion bill doesn't bother me, for one. I did, however, both write and call my congressman to communicate my disapproval for the resurrection of the Assault Weapons Ban in the form of HR 1022, sponsored by Rep. McCarthy (NY), et al. I encourage all of you to do the same, whatever you make of Herr Pratt and the GOA.

    -ljp

    p.s. Please read the proposed legislation itself before opining about it - blogs are not a definitive resource for information.


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    GOA is the Gun Owners of America, but I am happy to say that they do not speak for me, an enthusiastic owner for decades now. I find Mr. Pratt to be full of hyperbolic fury about any and all regulation of firearms, at least some of which I find to be reasonable. The NICS expansion bill doesn't bother me, for one. I did, however, both write and call my congressman to communicate my disapproval for the resurrection of the Assault Weapons Ban in the form of HR 1022, sponsored by Rep. McCarthy (NY), et al. I encourage all of you to do the same, whatever you make of Herr Pratt and the GOA.

    -ljp
    I think H.R 1022 from what I have read and understand is a DIRECT TERRORIST THREAT TO OUR NATION AND CONSTITUTION.



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    Can you say " hitnail on head ", kuzz you just did !

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    1st freedom wrote:
    Can you say " hitnail on head ", kuzz you just did !
    Thank you 1st freedom.

    I Believe that I spoke for all the OCDO members when I wrote this. It's totally from the Heart.

    And we thought Bush was Bad:what:...(my opinion)

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Keepandbear wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:An insider of what? I love "anonymous" "insiders" that give a viewpoint. They're so reliable.
    Please correct your misattribution. I 'wrote' nothing of the sort!

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good peopel ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    For those who didn't read the entire discussion, I was clearly not quoting Mr. Huffman. He did not "write" the article. But then again, you could havefooled me! This type of rhetoric is right up is alley. Is Mr. Huffman the "insider?"

    NRA *******=Hatred

    Hatred is apoisonous.

    Oh and by the way, to answer your question, the NRA doesn't need to do anything to expand open carry when many states have had open carry on the books, years before theNRA entered the political arena.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    Huffman, what is your problem with the NRA? Did you not get your decals or hat for signing up? Or is because you think they're in it for the money?

    You seem to disagree with anything the NRA does. Have you ever agreed with anything the NRA does?

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran kimbercarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    I don't like the legislation or the NRA supporting it. Once you are on the list you can't get off of it. The congress won't fund the FBI to do the research to remove people so you are stuck. I don't like where this is heading.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/S...=1173353927347



    "The compromise would require that incorrect records _ such as expunged mental health rulings that once disqualified a prospective gun buyer but no longer do _ be removed from system within 30 days.

    The original bill would require any agency, such as the Veterans Administration or the Defense Department, to notify a person flagged as mentally ill and disqualified from buying or possessing a gun. The new version now also would require the notification when someone has been cleared of that restriction.

    The bill would authorize up to $250 million a year over five years for the states and as much as $125 million a year over the same period for state courts to help defray the cost of enacting the policy."

    I guess that is the " compromise" that doug and the GOA got their panties in a wad about

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    Had the NRA not got involved, there would be no way to get off the list or no funding to do so. The bill was going to pass with or with out the NRA.

    Are you saying the NRA should have not got involved, that they should havemade a statement that they would not support it? Could you explain the advantage to that?

    How do you suggest the NRA should have stopped the bill all together. Then purpose a bill, allowing thosepeople found to bementally illto be able to obtain fire arms anyway, in the wake of the VT shootings?

    How would you have done that?


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    Is that your answer?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Live Free or Die, ,
    Posts
    140

    Post imported post

    I personally think this must be a magic piece of legislation.

    Today, the GOA issues a press release denouncing it

    Gun Owners Get Stabbed In The Back -- Veterans Disarmament Act on its way to the President

    and so does the Violence Policy Center:

    Trojan Horse Gun Control: The NRA Wins on the NICS Bill


    Both sides of the gun rights battle are crying that the other side won.

    It's...magic.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    Are you saying we should ignore it and hope it goes away?:?

    Not much of a game plan!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    Had the NRA not got involved and we "let nature take it's course" as you suggest, our solders coming back from the sandbox and being diagnosed with post traumatic syndrome from being in combat would never again be able to own a firearm. Because of the NRA our brave young men and woman will be able to exercise the Constitutional rights.

    Are saying that's a bad thing?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    So was it a good thing or a bad thing?

    A yes or a no would work.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    " It " was refuring to allowing our solders to get off the list.But you know that and can"t bring yourself to addmit it.

    I have to go now so I won't be posting for a couple of days, Mark I hope you and everyone else has a very Merry Christmas.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,764

    Post imported post

    Code:
    Outrage of the Week #1 was the passage of HR2640.  I've written President Bush 
    pleading with him to veto it. 
    
    Outrage #2 was NRA supporting this piece of legislation.  I really am beginning 
    to believe if we gun owners made any real gains you'd be out of work, so you 
    aren't helping the cause.  
    
    Outrage #3 was the NRA telling me in many e-mails over the past months that I"m 
    too stupid to read the legislation for myself and realize what a bad piece of 
    junk it was. 
    
    Tess Ailshire 
    Life Member
    They were sweet enough to reply with another "too stupid" message, thus:

    The passage of the “NICS Improvement Act” makes many improvements to current law that NRA has been seeking for years. The law will not negatively impact law-abiding gun owners. Please visit http://www.NRAILA.org where you will find a plethora of materials summarizing what this bill actually will and will not do.

    I would also suggest reading the following pieces by representatives of the gun ban group, the Violence Policy Center: Trojan Horse Gun Control: The NRA Wins on the NICS Bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-s...trol_b_77754.h tml)

    Gun Lobby Hijacks Bill Intended to Improve Gun Buyer Background Checks (http://www.vpc.org/press/0712nics.htm)
    In other words, shut up and color.

    So I responded perhaps it's good for the NRA, but not for the average law-abiding gun owner.

    No response to that so far. Apparently these idiots don't understand I READ THE FLIPPING BILL.............
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    I can understand the opposition to any legislation that improves a gun control system. It reinforces that gun control through legitimizing it. Nonetheless, this piece of legislation improves the system overall, and is nothing but beneficial to gun owners.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •