• 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.

Sign on letter re: H.R. 2640: Fix it or kill it!

M

Mike

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

24 July UPDATE - GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA NOW SIGNED ON!

MORE GROUPS NEEDED.

THIS LETTER WILL: BE BLAST FAXED TO ALL 100 SENATORSAT TEH END OF THIS WEEK, ALONG WITH A PRESS RELEASE.

UPDATED LETTER NOW POSTED - need groups to sign on by COB TODAY (24 July 2007) - Just send me an email to Mike @ OpenCarry.org with you your name and group you represent - sorry, no individual signers.
 

Attachments

  • 23 July Draft Letter against HR_2640.doc
    62 KB · Views: 220
M

Mike

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

Malum Prohibitum wrote:
Is this issue still open?
Click to expand...
Yes, however several major groups have contacted me unsatisfied with the letter, but have not suggested alternate verbaige. At this point, GOA appears to be leading the opposition to the bill in the Senate on the grounds that the bill "freezes in" due process-less mental defect adjudication procedures and does not guarantee lifting of the Lautenberg Amendment blocking spending on BATFE processing of appeals from disabilities.
 
M

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
947
Location
, ,
imported post

Mike wrote:
Malum Prohibitum wrote:
Is this issue still open?
Click to expand...
Yes, however several major groups have contacted me unsatisfied with the letter, but have not suggested alternate verbaige. At this point, GOA appears to be leading the opposition to the bill in the Senate on the grounds that the bill "freezes in" due process-less mental defect adjudication procedures and does not guarantee lifting of the Lautenberg Amendment blocking spending on BATFE processing of appeals from disabilities.
Click to expand...

Our board's major objection to the bill is not a problem with your letter. It is a major objection to the federalism concerns, i.e., the federal government ordering states to do anything, even if the federal government funds it, violates the sovereignty of states. We are debating what to do about the letter.

FWIW, your four suggestions for modifications are very good ones, it is just that GCO is concerned about signing onto yet one more federal government power grab that violates the federal structure of this nation.

We are still debating this issue internally.

As for the GOA concerns, well, I am not sure that the GOA is being completely factual in its arguments. You would know better than I, is the Pennsylvania example the God's honest truth? A sheriff can simply pull a permit on the word of a DA?



Take a look at Clayton Cramer's concerns with what the GOA is saying.

Here:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_07_08_archive.html#8885538410731692471

And here:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_06_24_archive.html#8373060109392918763

And here:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/labels/2007_06_24_archive.html#2765288779253726066

And especially here:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/labels/2007_06_24_archive.html#4583913310974920411

And a little here:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/labels/2007_06_17_archive.html#8875151630805971918
 
M

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
947
Location
, ,
imported post

Mike,

If the above violates the intent of this thread, feel free to delete it or move the post to a new thread. I really would like you to review what Clayton Cramer has to say on the subject.

But Mr. Cramer does not address our federalism concerns.

ED
 
M

Mike

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

Malum Prohibitum wrote:
Our board's major objection to the bill is not a problem with your letter. It is a major objection to the federalism concerns, i.e., the federal government ordering states to do anything, even if the federal government funds it, violates the sovereignty of states.
Click to expand...
OK, but the bill is constitutional in this regard - the bill merely provides subsidies for the states willing to drink the cool-aid and turn over all these records, even though the Congress had defunded the restoratuion of rights process so nobody can petition to correct a mistake etc.

See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole.
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

From Grass Roots Gun Rights South Carolina http://www.scfirearms.org/
Friends,

I have heard a lot of conflicting things about HR 2640. So, I decided I should read the bill.

It appears from all I have read that the NRA is basing their support of this GUN CONTROL bill on the empty promise that relief from disabilities will be available to those who have been wrongly put on the prohibited list, including our returning veterans. Only a fool would believe such relief will be available!!!!

Here is the proof:

Section 101(c)(2)(A) of H.R. 2640 states: " ... Relief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code."

Now, read the United States v Bean case from 2002. The United States Supreme Court ruled that NO RELIEF from disabilities can be obtained under Section 925(c) as long as Congress continues to withhold funding for the BATFE department responsible for reviewing the requests for removal of disabilities. The Court then noted that funding had been continuously denied since 1992.

Sen. Charles Schumer has led the efforts to deny funding for the relief from disabilities program under Section 925(c) for 15 years. But, it is not fair to only blame Sen. Schumer, it has taken the support of a majority of Congress to allow Sen. Schumer to have his way.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." We must not be so stupid as to think that Sen. Schumer and the rest of Congress will suddenly start funding a program that they have not funded for 15 years.

H.R. 2640 is more gun control!

H.R. 2640 will add tens of thousands of new people to the prohibited list, and these people will NOT have a way to get their names of of the list!

H.R. 2640 must be killed before more innocent people are put on the prohibited list!

Please contact your Senators ONCE AGAIN!

The VFW opposes H.R. 2640 because it is anti veteran.

Gun Owners of America opposes H.R. 2640 because it is more gun control.

State level gun rights organizations across the country are opposing H.R. 2640 because it is more gun control.

YOU can help kill H.R. 2640 by calling your Senators DeMint and Graham and asking them to kill H.R. 2640! Let them know that the NRA does NOT speak for you. Tell them you oppose all gun control, period.

The U.S. Senate switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.
Click to expand...
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 KMA$$
Code:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top