Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Alert: Kill 1805 Immediately

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners ^ | 02/26/04 | Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

[Copernicus]

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

EMERGENCY ALERT - S.1805 has Gun Control attached -- KILL IT!

Feb. 26, 2004, 1300 hrs Mountain - As predicted, S.1805, the Lawsuit Liability bill, is being debated on the Senate Floor right now (at the behest of its sponsor, Idaho Senator Larry Craig).

And late last night, Senator Larry Craig (a board member of the NRA) worked with rabid anti-gunner Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) to come up with a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" which allows a large number of gun control amendments to be offered to S.1805.

By pushing this bill to be heard on the floor, and agreeing to hear a large number of gun control amendments (listed below), Senator Craig has opened up Pandora's Box of Gun Control.

That means you MUST call your US Senators immediately, even if you called them yesterday.

Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.

Urge both of Colorado's Senators to VOTE AGAINST S.1805, now that it has gun control on it and is likely to contain more.

As this alert is being written, the Senate just passed an amendment (by 70-27, for story on this amendment click here, or here for full text) to require Trigger locks (we do not have the language, but will shortly) and is moving toward more gun control. It's a federal government intrusion on your right to self-defense, and FAR outweighs any good S.1805's original language would do.

And as this is being written, Sen. Teddy Kennedy is offering an amendment to ban "Cop Killer Bullets."

After agreeing to the "Unanimous Consent Agreement", Sen. Larry Craig said "Some of these amendments could pass." This C-Span2 admission is understating it -- some of these gun control amendments WILL pass. In fact, one already has, and others gun control advocates are lining up to join in on the "fun".

NRA Board Member Sen. Larry Craig has agreed to allow a slated list of gun control amendments to S.1805. These include, but are not limited to, the following unspecified gun controls:

Boxer - new Federal rules for Gun locks

Campbell - Cop-Only Nationwide Carry

Kennedy - Cop Killer Bullets

Mikulski - Snipers

McCain-Reed - Gun Show ban

Feinstein - Assault Weapons ban

Frist/Craig - Cop Killer bullets (a toned down, yet still anti-gun rights version of Kennedy's amendment)

And these are only the amendments that have been announced. Others almost certainly will be floated, and maybe passed.

Does this constitute proof that the NRA "struck a deal" to allow gun controls to pass? Of course, they claim they didn't cut any deals.

But ask these questions:

1. Have you received an e-mail from NRA-ILA urging voting against S.1805 IF it gets gun control on it? They KNOW quite well that this bill will have gun control on it, and have known it for weeks. Instead, they play inside baseball and tell gun owners "Trust us -- we have a plan", trusting in their own cleverness to circumvent the anti-gunners amendments. That is the same thing they said on the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance Deform bill (which stripped gun owners of their 1st Amendment rights) as well as the first Assault Weapons and High-capacity magazines ban bill, Brady Registration Checks, Lautenberg Gun Ban, etc, etc.

That's a failed strategy, and should be abandoned.

Remember, the definition of insanity is continuing to do what you've always done but expecting different results.

They'll post some things on their website (which is passive), but they won't apply real pressure. That mean's they are, by their silence, agreeing to this "Unanimous Consent Agreement." And their board member, Sen. Larry Craig, openly agreed to that agreement with Sen. Reed.

Craig will vote against most (not all -- in fact, Sen. Craig offered his own "Cop Killer Bullets" amendment in an attempt to appease Teddy Kennedy) of the gun controls, but he's the person who enabled all of these gun control amendments.

2. Why would an NRA board member accept a Unanimous Consent Agreement to allow a huge number of amendments to be debated, all of which strip gun owners of their rights and many of which that board member (and US Senator) knows will pass?

The writer of this alert is a former staff member (not intern) of the U.S. Senate, under Senator Bill Armstrong. I know how the U.S. Senate works, and have been in regular consultation with those who have worked in all aspects of Congress for decades.

One thing is crystal clear: the NRA's mouthpiece, US Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), has agreed to let these amendments be heard, and he knows some will be attached to the bill.

3. Have you heard the NRA say that they will oppose S.659/S.1805 in the Senate if it gets gun control amendments on it? We haven't, and doubt we will, since their US Senator is the one who enabled those amendments to be attached. Their plan, to let these gun controls ride on the bill and hope they are stripped out in the House, is an incredibly risky gambit, which if lost will result in the largest erosion of our rights in American history.

There's no more time to waste.

Call your US Senators immediately and urge them to vote AGAINST S.1805.

Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.

Urge them to vote against S.1805.

It's time to pull the plug on this well-meaning, but gun-control-laden dog.

E-mail: ExDir@RMGO.org

[Copernicus]

Comments? Questions?

[Copernicus]

Might want to pass this around to interested parties.

[Monty22]

This thing is so loaded with awful stuff now, it simply *has* to be killed.

The scary thing is, Feinstein promised to attach the AWB on ANYTHING she can, so if this fails, she'll keep going on it

[CheezyD]

(we do not have the language, but will shortly)

There's way too much misinformation going around right now. Perhaps one should wait until they know what really is in the bill before calling for it's death. I myself was PO'ed because I though the bill included mandated storage when in fact it doesn't. I've taken a few deep breaths and now I'm waiting to see what the bill will really contain. I'm not going to jump to conclusions based on rumor.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Well you gun owners may want to hold your horses as this plays out.

Here is the latest read from NRA. I received it at 9:45am chicagotime.




On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Senate began to debate S. 1805—the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (formerly referenced as S. 659/S. 1806.) A bi-partisan 75-22 vote allowed debate to proceed, lifting the threat of a filibuster.

The debate continued late into the evening with no substantive movement on the bill and no additional votes were taken. Senators did, however, reach a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" spelling out specific amendments that would be permitted to be offered during the debate in anticipation of a final vote on the underlying measure next Tuesday.

On Thursday, the Senate reconvened and first considered was an amendment by anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that would require all handguns be sold with a mechanical safety device approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC). This amendment was then replaced with a "second degree" amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners. The revised amendment passed 70-27.

The Senate next debated an amendment by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) which would permit current and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms off duty in other states. Arguing hysterically against the amendment, anti-gun Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) revealed his deep distrust of gun carrying even by sworn police officers. A vote on the Campbell amendment was deferred until Tuesday.

Sen. Kennedy then introduced an amendment to ban the manufacture and sale of "armor-piercing" ammunition. Kennedy, who actually condemned the .30-30 Winchester cartridge during debate, wants to institute a "performance-based" standard that would grant any future Attorney General sweeping authority to ban any center-fire ammunition, including most common-place rifle hunting ammunition. The standard proposed by Sen. Kennedy was rejected in the 1980s as overly broad and unnecessary to meet any threat posed to law enforcement officers` safety. A vote on this NRA-opposed amendment will take place Tuesday.

The Senate next debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S. 1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was defeated, 56-40. A "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. John Corzine (D-NJ) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.

NRA strongly opposed both amendments. One of the strengths of S. 1805 is that it adopts the same rules for all plaintiffs, no matter how sympathetic or unsympathetic, and no matter how notorious or mundane their victimization. Plaintiffs` rights should depend on settled principles of law, not on emotion or sympathy.

NRA-ILA stands totally committed to enacting S. 1805 without anti-gun amendments, and will continue to vigorously oppose any reauthorization of the 1994 Clinton gun ban and any attempt to ban gun shows.

Please continue to contact your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to support S. 1805 without any anti-gun amendments. Call ILA`s Grassroots staff at (800) 392-8683, or visit http://www.nraila.org/stoprecklesslawsuits.aspx for additional information and to utilize the "Write Your Representatives" feature to contact your U.S. Senators.

This post is to provide information to the histeria that is running rapid on the internet.

I do not support NRA, nor am I a friend of NRA. However, U suggest that you don't have all the information.

[jocko12]

BUSH VETO THIS BILL.

[nobody_knows]

"This thing is so loaded with awful stuff now, it simply *has* to be killed. The scary thing is, Feinstein promised to attach the AWB on ANYTHING she can, so if this fails, she'll keep going on it."

Can we ad an amendment to ban Feinstein and her ilk from ever adding amendments to bills? Especially when it involves our 2nd amendment rights?

[JennysCool]

Kill 1805 Immediately

I think anything above about 1,500 or so is overkill.

[Copernicus]

I do not support NRA, nor am I a friend of NRA. However, U suggest that you don't have all the information.

Thank you for your input. I am a voting member of the NRA and have learned over the years to watch them very closely.

They will use language in their alerts that would make Bill Clinton proud and cut deals with known gun grabbers because of a misguided dedication to "expediency".

As always, I support them when they do proper work and oppose them when they get off track.

Best regards,

[gatex]

"The scary thing is, Feinstein promised to attach the AWB on ANYTHING she can, so if this fails, she'll keep going on it..."

Learn the rules and beat them at their own game---

Attach a pro-gun amendment to every bill -- drive them crazy.

[Shooter 2.5]

Wow.
A web site that makes keepandbeararms look almost sane.
Remarkable.

[TigersEye]

Previous discussion on this bill here.

[TigersEye]

A web site that makes keepandbeararms look almost sane. Remarkable.

What did KABA say that is out of line with this article or what the NRA says in post #5?

[Shooter 2.5]

All of their comments concerning Craig.

[lepton]

So...the bill should be killed, not because of what it contains, but because along with it there is an opening for amendments? Thus even if the Amendments fail to be added, the bill should be killed because they could have been?

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Text of the Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia
being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Anyone who actually reads AND understands the 2nd Amendment will see that there is no need or authority for any type of gun registration and there is no need for anyone to have to apply for a license to carry a gun.
Any political party, politician, judge (etc), organization or individual who trys to convince you that:
1) you must register a firearm
2) you must pass a background check
3) you must wait (x) amount of days before you can get your firearm
4) you need to have a license to carry a gun
is either uneducated about OUR rights as citizens
OR is actively working to undermine OUR country.

How Did the Founders Understand the Second Amendment?

CONGRESS in 1866, 1941 and 1986 REAFFIRMS THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms,
originated in the United States Congress in 1789 before being ratified by the States.
On three occasions since then--in 1866, 1941, and 1986--
Congress enacted statutes to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom
and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.

ON THE DAY BEFORE Thanksgiving 1993,
the 103d US Congress brought forth a constitutional turkey.
The 103d Congress decided that the Second Amendment did not mean what it said
("...shall not be infringed") and passed the Brady bill.
How the Brady Bill Passed (and subsequently - "Instant Check")
When the Brady Bill was passed into law on November 24, 1993,
the Senate voted on the Conference Report
and passed the Brady Bill by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

[TigersEye]

All of their comments concerning Craig.

Their 'comments' concerning Craig were in the form of directly quoting him. Seems fair to me. The NRA released this concerning Craig:

The debate continued late into the evening with no substantive movement on the bill and no additional votes were taken. Senators did, however, reach a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" spelling out specific amendments that would be permitted to be offered during the debate in anticipation of a final vote on the underlying measure next Tuesday.

They just failed to say that it was Craig who agreed to the "Unanimous Consent Agreement" and that the UCA opened this bill up for all these gun-control amendments as the GOA article above does.

If your idea of saner is keeping people in the dark about who's doing what then I'll go with the crazy websites. Intentional lack of information has never won any kind of battle.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Anyone who actually reads AND understands the 2nd Amendment will see that there is no need or authority for any type of gun registration and there is no need for anyone to have to apply for a license to carry a gun.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Absolutely correct.

Remember the days when Rights were rights.

Today rights require a license and a privilage is a right.

[TigersEye]

Thus even if the Amendments fail to be added, the bill should be killed because they could have been?

Or you can roll the dice and hope for the best. 'If' is shaky word.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Every Constitutional citizen has the duty to replace our elected officials with honorable men and women who will honor their oath to defend our only Ratified Constitution or we shall not have one.

The fascist (criminally corrupt socialsim) tyranny is marching under cover of islam's Terror War. Incumbant nomenclatura and apparatchiks & dudes of both parties want protection from We the People. Islamokazies are an excuse to nullify further our Bill of Rights and 14th equal protection; nothing has changed since the Clintonazis ruled us. Regardless of who is president, we shall soon be ruled under totalitarian "Emergency Powers" with our Constitution effectively suspended, certainly when D.C. is attacked with plague and/or nukes/dirties.

No one in government has the lawful authority to usurp our Ratified Constitution, yet such temporary people in high office undermine our Law of the Land to press their police power agenda. We shall be ruled because of statist blackrobes' contrived, self-serving fiats: "compelling State interests" and "sovereign immunity", despite no basis in our Constitution, THE Law of OUR Land.

Incumbants too soon become citizens' rulers, uninhibited in their rogue powers. State's police powers always overpower citizens' rights, unless stopped. Thomas Jefferson acknowledged this fact together with his peers.

American socialists of both parties must disarm America for American fascism to prevail. The Dems demand it.

Citizens must soon become more familiar with the European socialism history from 1910 to WWII to foresee our future. Hitler was duly elected and lawfully legislated his "Emergency Powers", quite similar to ours, reorganized for efficiency under XXX-Clinton, for Hillary cum Kerry-on packages. "War Powers" legislated for Woodrow Wilson in 1917 in WWI are in effect to this day, so we have an elites' shadow government with out Constitutional restrictions prepared to rule us. IT can happen here.