Posted on 04/24/2007 7:46:30 PM PDT by neverdem
www.gunowners.org
Apr 2007
ACTION: Now that Congress is moving to restrict YOUR rights in response to the VA Tech shootings, please make sure to take the following three actions after you read this alert:
1. Urge your Representative to OPPOSE HR 297, the Dingell-McCarthy legislation that is designed to take the Brady Law to new heights, turning it into a law on steroids which could one day keep even YOU from buying a gun. (Contact information and a draft letter to your Representative are provided below.)
2. Gin up the e-mail alert systems in your state and forward this e-mail to as many gun owners as you can.
3. Please stand with Gun Owners of America -- at http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm -- and help us to continue this fight, as right now, we are combating this latest onslaught ALONE in our nation's capital. GOA spokesmen spent all of last week doing radio and TV debates, interviews for newswires, and opinion editorials for newspapers. This week, we begin the battle in Congress to defeat legislation that could block millions of additional, honest gun owners from buying firearms.
Monday, April 23, 2007
The biggest gun battle of the year is about to erupt on Capitol Hill. Fueled by the recent Virginia Tech shootings, an odd coalition is forming to help expand the number of honest people who now won't be able to buy a gun.
The legislation has been introduced by none other than the Queen of Gun Control herself, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). But she has picked up a key ally, as the bill (HR 297) is being pushed by a powerful gun group in Washington, DC.
On Friday, The Washington Post reported on the strange coalition. "With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls," the Post said, "the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system."
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who was once on the NRA Board of Directors but resigned when he supported and voted for the Clinton semi-auto ban in 1994, is reported to be "leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal [soon]," Democratic aides and lawmakers told the newspaper.
Rep. McCarthy admitted to the Post that her "crusades" for more gun control have made her voice "toxic" in gun circles. "So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA," the newspaper reported. "Dingell is also in talks with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee."
Despite all this bad news, the Post article does go on to explain that there are some potential pitfalls.
First, you will remember that this is the bill you helped kill last year, when an avalanche of postcards was dumped on Congressional desks by thousands upon thousands of GOA activists. That's why the Post says there is one huge obstacle -- the members of Gun Owners of America.
"The NRA must balance its desire to respond to the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman in the nation's history with its competition with the more strident Gun Owners of America, which opposes any restriction on gun purchases," the Post reported.
SO WHAT DOES HR 297 DO?
Well, the rest of this alert will answer this question. This alert is long, but it is important to read it in its entirety. We need to "arm" ourselves with the facts so that we can keep pro-gun Congressmen from being duped into supporting a bill that, as of now, is being unanimously cosponsored by representatives sporting an "F-" rating by GOA.
HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are thinking, "Oh, I’ve never committed a felony, so this bill won't affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun rights than ever before.
Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?
Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).
HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the NICS system.
But, of course, Representatives Dingell and McCarthy tell us that we need HR 297 to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like we had on Virginia Tech. Oh really?
Then why, after passing all of their gun control, do countries like Canada and Germany still have school shootings? Even the infamous schoolyard massacre which occurred in Ireland in 1997 took place in a country that, at that time, had far more stringent gun controls than we do.
Where has gun control made people safer? Certainly not in Washington, DC, nor in Great Britain, nor in any other place that has enacted a draconian gun ban.
IMPORTANT TALKING POINTS FOR CAPITOL HILL
Regarding Cho's evil actions last Monday at Virginia Tech, your Representative needs to understand three things:
1. If a criminal is a danger to himself and society, then he should not be on the street. If he is, then there's no law (or background check for that matter) that will stop him from getting a gun and acting out the evil that is in his heart. (Remember that Washington, DC and England have not stopped bad guys from getting guns!) So why wasn't Cho in the criminal justice system? Why was he allowed to intermix with other college students? The justice system frequently passes off thugs to psychologists who then let them slip through their fingers and back into society -- where they are free to rape, rob and murder.
2. Background checks DO NOT ULTIMATELY STOP criminals and mental wackos from getting guns. This means that people who are initially denied firearms at a gun store can still buy one illegally and commit murder if they are so inclined -- such as Benjamin Smith did in 1999 (when he left the gun store where he was denied a firearm, bought guns on the street, and then committed his racist rampage less than a week later).NOTE: In the first five years that the Brady Law was in existence, there were reportedly only three illegal gun buyers who were sent to jail. That is why in 1997, a training manual produced by Handgun Control, Inc., guided its activists in how to answer a question regarding the low number of convictions under the Brady Law. The manual basically says, when you are asked why so few people are being sent to jail under Brady, just ignore the question and go on the attack. [See GOF's Gun Control Fact Sheet.]
3. Background checks threaten to prevent INNOCENT Americans like you from exercising your right to own a gun for self-defense. No doubt you are familiar with the countless number of times that the NICS system has erroneously blocked honest Americans from buying a gun, or have heard about the times that the NICS computer system has crashed for days at a time, thus preventing all sales nationwide -- and effectively shutting down every weekend gun show.
Perhaps the most pernicious way of denying the rights of law-abiding gun owners is to continuously add more and more gun owners' names onto the roles of prohibited persons. Clinton did this with many military veterans in 1999. And Congress did this in 1996, when Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) successfully pushed a gun ban for people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or merely yelling at a family member. Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans can never again own guns for self-defense. HR 297 will make it easier for the FBI to find out who these people are and to deny firearms to them.
GOA has documented other problems with this bill in the past. In our January alert on HR 297 we pointed out how this bill will easily lend itself to bureaucratic "fishing expeditions" into your private records, including your financial, employment, and hospital records.
HR 297 takes us the wrong direction. The anti-gun Rep. Dingell is trying to sell the bill to the gun owning public as an improvement in the Brady Law. But don't be fooled! The best improvement would be to repeal the law and end the "gun free zones" that keep everyone defenseless and disarmed -- except for the bad guys.
CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
Dear Representative:
I am a Second Amendment supporter who strongly opposes HR 297 -- the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 -- and I strongly agree with Gun Owners of America that this bill should be defeated.
The minor improvements this bill makes to the Brady instant check are insignificant when compared to the outrageous invasions of our privacy it would permit.
Gun Owners of America has posted an analysis of HR 297 on its website, showing how the bill will target millions of law-abiding gun owners, including thousands of combat veterans who served our country bravely.
Supporters of this bill say we need it to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like the one at Virginia Tech. But honestly, what gun law has stopped bad guys from getting a gun? Not in Canada, where they recently had a school shooting. Certainly not in Washington, DC or in England!
I think we've got to stop treating criminals like medical patients, thus allowing them to slip through the cracks. If we are not going to incarcerate dangerous people, then all the gun laws in the world will never stop them from getting firearms.
Don't be misled into thinking that this is a bill that gun owners endorse. Most gun owners want Brady repealed, not "fixed." The law has done nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, but it has violated the Second Amendment rights of millions of law-abiding Americans.
Sincerely,
Orrin Hatch is an @$$. Nothing he does would surprise me.
I find it hard to believe somebody from Alaska would collaborate with McCarthy who really is a nutcase on the subject of gun control.
Nevertheless, forewarned is forarmed.
Let’s see... my Congressman is Richard Neal, who also represents Northamption, MA. Yeah, I think I’ll write to him right away asking him to oppose this bill... /sarcasm
I’ll give you one example, because it’s handy. The NRA supported the 86 ban on ammunition and supported the 94 amendment to ban specially jacketed bullets and continues to support such a ban. In fact, the NRA brags that it drafted portions of the ‘86 ban.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=25
I note additionally that the NRA doesn’t even mention automatic weapons on its website and avoids the issue at all costs. Antecdotally, some years ago I was telephoned by the NRA asking me to join. I made the comment to the operator that I wouldn’t join the NRA so long as it continued to support the ban on automatic weapons, and the operator replied something to the effect of “But you don’t think people should be able to own automatic weapons, do you?”
More from the NRA website:
“[T]hey claim that NRA opposes all gun laws. The truth is, NRA supports many gun laws...”
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209
As far as I’m concerned, the Second Amendment is absolute. Once we allow SOME regulation, there is no longer any legitimate line at which we can make a stand to say “no more!” Every restriction can be considered “reasonable” because we’ve admitted it can be regulated.
So if I’m choosing someplace to give my money, GOA gets the check.
bump
With all that said though, I don't think the 1986 NRA and the current NRA are the same thing. I think the debate has changed in the last 20 years, as has the organization leadership and general direction, and the current leadership is in step with the current membership who are totally unwilling to give up ground when it's battle that we are winning.
Clearly we're both on the same side of this issue, so our discussion is really about tactics not goals. And as it stands right now I don't think the tactics of the NRA call for compromising on anything because the membership won't allow them to. If they come back supporting any new firearms law the membership will have their heads.
But there is a lot of ground to be made by gun banners by doing all they can to make it seem like the NRA is supporting legislation even if they aren't. And in this case I think the GOA is allowing themselves to be exploited toward that end.
I'm going to wait till I hear a statement from the NRA, and not just the people who they are fighting against.
Well, I really hope you’re right about the NRA. I’ll say that I agree with about 90% of what the NRA does, but I’m really very troubled by that 10%, mostly not because I care about armour piercing ammunition, but because if we admit the Second Amendment is open to regulation, I think it’s tough to hold our ground down the road.
I also agree that we’re winning the battle in the legislatures and even Congress. I think even as little as ten years ago, this proposed law would have been passed without much resistance, so that’s a nice change.
I hope that you’re also right that the NRA isn’t supporting a change, but given the NRA’s support of the NICS, it doesn’t seem out of character to me.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I have seen more diabetics with more erratic behavior than most Vets with PTSD. Where does it stop? Is it time to build the gulags yet?
Not until they've achieved their dream of a USA where only the police and military are armed and then da, tovarish you will be sent to gulag or "shot trying to escape"
I wish that were so, but as pointed out in posting #11 by facedown, the NRA-ILA has this at on its FactSheets and it appears to me that they do support HR 297:
Background Checks/ NICS This bill, cosponsored by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and others, would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers. It also addresses concerns over past implementation actions by the FBI, prohibits the FBI from charging a “user fee” for background checks on gun buyers, and directs the General Accounting Office to audit and report to the Congress on past expenditures for NICS record improvements.
H.R. 297, the “NICS Improvement Act of 2007”
Many of the problems encountered in recent legislative debates over gun control—especially the 1999 debate on gun show regulation—center on the inadequacy of NICS records. Inaccurate or incomplete records delay firearm purchases and result in wrongful denials of law-abiding buyers. This bill would help fix those problems. It sets specific goals and timetables and details the records improvements that are required. Unfortunately, the language in the original Brady Act may have allowed the previous $200 million intended for this purpose to be spent on largely unrelated projects—an issue addressed by the GAO audit provision.
Importantly, H.R. 297 provides for the removal of disqualifying records on individuals who are no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm. For instance, if a person was at one time committed to a mental institution, but was then found not to have any mental illness, that record should be removed from instant check databases. Additionally, in non-mental health areas, NRA is aware of a number of cases where arrest or conviction records have been left on file even after charges were dropped or rights were restored.
The core of the bill is a requirement that federal agencies and states provide all relevant records to the FBI for use in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This would generally include records of convicted felons, fugitives from justice, persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders, as well as federal records of illegal aliens. It also requires removal of records that are incorrect, or irrelevant to determining a person’s eligibility to receive a firearm.
The bill also requires transmittal of records of those people defined under federal law and regulations as having been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. Under current federal law, the requirement does not apply to records of voluntary commitments or commitments for observation, and the bill makes clear that all information is subject to applicable privacy rules. The Attorney General is directed to work with state agencies and the mental health community to develop additional protocols for privacy of records.
If a state does not provide 60% of the required records within two years, the Attorney General may penalize the state by withholding up to 3% of the state’s Byrne Grant funds. If a state does not provide 90% of required records within five years, the Attorney General shall withhold 5% of Byrne Grant funds. (A waiver is allowed based on “substantial evidence” of the state’s “reasonable effort” to comply.)
As an incentive for compliance, three years after the enactment of the act, states may receive waivers (for up to 2 years) of the 10% matching requirements for Criminal History Improvement Grants, if they provide 90% of the required information.
$750 million is authorized over three years to assist states in improving their databases relevant to NICS, or developing their own instant check capabilities. Another grant program would authorize $375 million over three years to state courts to improve and transmit their disposition records to NICS.
Posted: 1/8/2007 12:00:00 AM
The NRA doesn't dictate it's policies to it's members as the post would have you believe, but has those policies dictated to it.
Very true: I have always felt that I had very good response from NRA staff and senior people on concerns that I have expressed. That's one area where I think GOA is valuable: the GOA (and the JPFO) seem to me closer to my stance as an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment, and when they express a concern, it's valuable to me to know about it.
But I wouldn't go rushing away from the NRA just yet.
There is no way that I will rush away from the NRA, or support doing that. The NRA is a fantastic organization that has done a lot of good. And when it's a little off-track in my opinion, that means it is up to me as a member to help push it back on-track.
I am also a member of the American Automobile Association, and I feel that while I get reasonable value for the road service that I receive as a member, I disagree with most of their political activities. I just wish that I had the same feeling of influence on the AAA as that I have with the NRA.
As others have pointed out all it will take is reclassifying a new mental illness and every gun owner would be trapped thanks to the fact that the NRA supported it. No thanks.
All the same, it's a debate about tactics not goals. I agree with you that at this point a no compromise position looks to me to be the most effective way of securing and reinforcing our rights. And I can see how some people might in good faith believe that this points to a compromise position by the NRA, but I'd still prefer to wait for them to say where they stand themselves, instead of listening only to their critics. (Although to be completely honest, I'm now convinced enough to send them an email to let them know how much I would disapprove.)
When and if the NRA comes out on favor of new regulation, I'll be taking a completely different view than I've posted here.
It needs a Beer can holder . . .
I don’t drikn eBer ayn mroe.
You summed up the situation quite precisely.
The GOA seems to exist to make the NRA appear reasonable to the fencesitters. I hope our NRA is giving them a little money. I’ve sat for a couple of hours and talked to Larry Pratt. He is a reasonable guy and is unbending on our gun rights. The two organizations are very good at good cop, bad cop.
That is the point at which we get to refresh the tree of liberty.
The NICS check is supposed to turn up whether you are subject to such a prohibition, and there’s a question on the ATF 4473 asking you if you have been found to be a mental defective or if you have been confined to a mental hospital (lying on the form is a felony). All this proposal would do is require States to add that information to NICS, so the NICS check will tell whether a prospective buyer is lying on the 4473 before the buy a gun.
Do we think people who a court has found to be a threat to others (due to a mental condition) should be allowed to buy guns in violation of federal law (there is a way to clear your name if you think your condition should no longer disqualify you)?
bttt - placemarker
Follow the money. (...and the political clout.) It's unfortunate and counterproductive that some of the smaller gun rights organizations see the NRA as competition rather than an ally. GOA is particularly bad about this. They claim that the NRA "compromises" with the antis, but here's that "compromise"...
Background Checks/ NICS H.R. 297, the “NICS Improvement Act of 2007” This bill, cosponsored by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and others, would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers. It also addresses concerns over past implementation actions by the FBI, prohibits the FBI from charging a “user fee” for background checks on gun buyers, and directs the General Accounting Office to audit and report to the Congress on past expenditures for NICS record improvements.
Many of the problems encountered in recent legislative debates over gun control—especially the 1999 debate on gun show regulation—center on the inadequacy of NICS records. Inaccurate or incomplete records delay firearm purchases and result in wrongful denials of law-abiding buyers.
This bill would help fix those problems. It sets specific goals and timetables and details the records improvements that are required. Unfortunately, the language in the original Brady Act may have allowed the previous $200 million intended for this purpose to be spent on largely unrelated projects—an issue addressed by the GAO audit provision.
Importantly, H.R. 297 provides for the removal of disqualifying records on individuals who are no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm. For instance, if a person was at one time committed to a mental institution, but was then found not to have any mental illness, that record should be removed from instant check databases. Additionally, in non-mental health areas, NRA is aware of a number of cases where arrest or conviction records have been left on file even after charges were dropped or rights were restored.
The core of the bill is a requirement that federal agencies and states provide all relevant records to the FBI for use in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This would generally include records of convicted felons, fugitives from justice, persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders, as well as federal records of illegal aliens. It also requires removal of records that are incorrect, or irrelevant to determining a person’s eligibility to receive a firearm.
The bill also requires transmittal of records of those people defined under federal law and regulations as having been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. Under current federal law, the requirement does not apply to records of voluntary commitments or commitments for observation, and the bill makes clear that all information is subject to applicable privacy rules. The Attorney General is directed to work with state agencies and the mental health community to develop additional protocols for privacy of records.
If a state does not provide 60% of the required records within two years, the Attorney General may penalize the state by withholding up to 3% of the state’s Byrne Grant funds. If a state does not provide 90% of required records within five years, the Attorney General shall withhold 5% of Byrne Grant funds. (A waiver is allowed based on “substantial evidence” of the state’s “reasonable effort” to comply.)
As an incentive for compliance, three years after the enactment of the act, states may receive waivers (for up to 2 years) of the 10% matching requirements for Criminal History Improvement Grants, if they provide 90% of the required information.
$750 million is authorized over three years to assist states in improving their databases relevant to NICS, or developing their own instant check capabilities. Another grant program would authorize $375 million over three years to state courts to improve and transmit their disposition records to NICS.
This isn't adding any burdens to gun owners; it's removing them. Is there something wrong with that? GOA seems to think so.
Yes, it would be nice to do away with Brady altogether, but that's not a political reality; just as doing away with the "sporting purposes" clause in the '68 GCA would be nice but isn't (yet) a political reality. In the meantime, why not fix the flawed laws as much as possible? Is that "compromise"? Of course not.
But when you're raising money...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.