Here's a picture I hadn't seen before. A grant from the NRA to young shooters. Another thing the GOA doesn't do.
Posted on 04/27/2007 11:15:33 AM PDT by neverdem
www.gunowners.org
Apr 2007
"Another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, is adamantly opposed to the [McCarthy-Dingell] legislation. It said the measure would allow the government to trample privacy rights by compiling reams of personal information and potentially bar mentally stable people from buying guns." -- Associated Press, April 24, 2007 |
Thursday, April 26, 2007
This is going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight. GOA continues to stand alone in the trenches, defending the rights of gun owners around the country. It's not going to be easy.
Gun control supporters want to pass gun control within the next couple of weeks. And that's why, even if you took action earlier this week, you need to do so once again.
All the gun haters (who have been keeping silent for a while) are now coming out of the closet and into the open. Take the notoriously anti-gun senator from New York -- Chuck Schumer. He has been very, very excited this week. Recent events have given him a platform, and the excuse, to push legislation that he had sponsored years ago -- legislation that never got through Congress.
You see, Senator Chuck Schumer has been, in past years, the Senate sponsor of the McCarthy bill (HR 297). And the recent murders at Virginia Tech have given Senator Schumer the pretext he has been looking for. Appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show earlier this week, Schumer did his best to make a reasonable-sounding pitch for more gun control.
He told O'Reilly on Monday that while he and Rep. McCarthy had previously worked together on this legislation, he now wants Congress to take up HR 297 quickly. "The Brady Law is a reasonable limitation," Schumer said. "Some might disagree with me, but I think certain kinds of licensing and registration is a reasonable limitation. We do it for cars."
Get the picture? First, he wants the Brady Law strengthened with the McCarthy-Dingell-Schumer legislation. Then it's off to pass more gun control -- treating guns like cars, where all gun owners are licensed and where bureaucrats will have a wonderful confiscation list.
In the O'Reilly interview, Schumer showed his hand when he revealed the strategy for this bill. Because it could become such a hot potato -- thanks to your efforts -- Senator Schumer is pushing to get this bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically means that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE.
This is a perfect way to pass gun control without anyone getting blamed... or so they think. We need to tell every Senator that if this bill passes without a vote, then we hold ALL OF THEM responsible. (Be looking for a future GOA alert aimed at your Senators.)
On the House side, the Associated Press reported this past Monday that "House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking" certain prohibited persons from buying guns. Of course, there are at least three problems with this approach:
1. It's morally and constitutionally wrong to require law-abiding citizens to first prove their innocence to the government before they can exercise their rights -- whether it's Second Amendment rights, First Amendment rights, or any other right. Doing that gives bureaucrats the opportunity to abuse their power and illegitimately prevent honest gun owners from buying guns.
2. Bureaucrats have already used the Brady Law to illegitimately deny the Second Amendment rights of innocent Americans. Americans have been prevented from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets, because of errors, because the NICS computer system has crashed -- and don't forget returning veterans because of combat-related stress. You give an anti-gun bureaucrat an inch, he'll take a mile -- which we have already seen as GOA has documented numerous instances of the abuses mentioned above.
3. Finally, all the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad guys from getting firearms. As we mentioned in the previous alert, severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England, Canada, Germany and other places have not stopped evil people from using guns to commit murder. (Correction: In our previous alert, we incorrectly identified Ireland as the location of the infamous schoolyard massacre. In fact, it took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996 -- a country which at the time had even more stringent laws than we have here.)
McCARTHY BILL TREATING GUN OWNERS WORSE THAN TERRORISTS
HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which according to the Attorney General, in his or her unilateral discretion, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a "prohibited person."
Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.
And yet, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information -- information which dwarfs any records obtained from warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.
In fact, HR 297 would allow the FBI to get this information on honest Americans (like you) even though the required data is much more private and personal than any information obtained thus far by the Bush administration on terrorists.
And all of these personal records would be obtained by the FBI with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!
Get the picture? Spying on terrorists is bad... but spying on honest gun owners is good. After all, this horrific intrusion on the private lives of all Americans is presumed to be "okay" because it's only being used to bash guns, not to go after terrorists and criminals who are trying to kill us.
As indicated in earlier alerts, this information could include your medical, psychological, financial, education, employment, traffic, state tax records and more. We don't even know the full extent of what could be included because HR 297 -- which can be viewed at http://thomas.loc.gov by typing in the bill number -- is so open-ended. It requires states to provide the NICS system with ALL RECORDS that the Attorney General believes will help the FBI determine who is and who is not a prohibited person. Certainly, an anti-gun AG like Janet Reno would want as many types of records in the system as possible.
The provision that would probably lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all "relevant" data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?
1. Please take a moment to communicate your opposition to HR 297 -- even if you already sent your Representative a note earlier this week. We have provided a new letter (below) which provides updated information relating to the battle we are fighting.
House leaders are talking about bringing up this bill soon. And Sen. Schumer (in his interview with O'Reilly) even hinted at the fact that the bill could come up WITHOUT the ability to offer pro-gun amendments -- such as a repeal of the DC gun ban or reciprocity for concealed carry holders -- provisions that could potentially serve as killer amendments.
Also -- oh yeah, this is going to upset you -- Senator Schumer told O'Reilly, "I got to tell you, a lot of NRA people, they support this." Can you believe that? Senator Schumer is claiming to speak for you! That’s why it's so important that you once again tell your congressman that Schumer is wrong... that you're a supporter of gun rights who OPPOSES the anti-gun McCarthy-Dingell bill.
2. Please circulate this e-mail and forward it to as many gun owners as you can.
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:
As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support HR 297, the NICS Improvement Act. I hope that you will OPPOSE this bill and urge your party leadership to either kill it outright or to allow other pro-gun amendments to be offered (repeal of the DC gun ban, reciprocity for concealed carry holders, etc.).
In its current form, HR 297 will treat gun owners even worse than terrorists, giving the FBI a mountain of private information on law-abiding Americans like me.
How is it that, despite all the criticism over the Bush administration's attempts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists without a court order, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information on ME -- information which dwarfs any warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.
And all of this personal information would be obtained by the FBI with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!
How is it that spying on terrorists is bad, but spying on honest gun owners is good?
Again, I hope that you will oppose HR 297. Gun Owners of America will continue to keep me informed on the progress of this bill. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Streaming Video Update
It's an ongoing process of getting permissions, obtaining source discs, and formatting files, but we are continuing to post videos of GOA spokesmen on television as they become available. Please stop by our streaming video section to see what's new this week.
The problem is that the government would have access and authority when they want it and that would provide them with the means to selectively target anyone, any group, they chose to go after.
Further, your note regarding not allowing confiscation (and an earlier post about keeping a stash) makes an otherwise law abiding and patriotic citizen a criminal.
Ness got Capone on tax evasion, there is no reason to believe that a future administration would not go after critics for 'disallowed gun ownership'.
The time for all this trashing of the GOP is now before we choose a candidate - so you are right to do this - although it is amusing that every time a new candidate is mentioned, there is literal hsyteria on these posts pointing out how just plain AWFUL and out of the question, fill-in-the-blank is.
But after someone you don't want is selected you will continue to trash them, stay home, or vote for the other guy insisting there is no difference when of course there is AND thereby giving even more power to the dims next time.
That's fine - that will settle it. As masters of voter fraud, the dims will make sure that we never regain power.
Meanwhile you will become more and more frustrated, still waiting for a cross between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Stewart who are not going to reappear at a time when just normal people, never mind heroic people, won't even get into politics.
You will tell yourself and others, as another poster did, that you'd rather have a bloody nose than bloody shorts having insured that you will have both and probably getting all our throats cut too, since islam is NOT going away and, being basically cowards, are only waiting until we weaken ourselves enough to suit them.
Duly noted...
And I see your point...
But answer me this...When does a “law”, overide an inalienable right endowed upon “you” by “your” creator???
When does an “law” override a “moral” right to self-preservation, a law that would remove or make it “illegal” for you to defend against an immoral and illegal act against you???
Suzanne Hupp made a point about her incident (Lubys’ in Killeen, Texas) that if she had the chance to choose between having a felony conviction, and have her parents alive today, she would have done it in a heartbeat!
I think we need to beat those policies and risks against us into oblivion! And if we have to civily and moraly dissobey an immoral law, I believe there would be a lot of people we might have to crawl over to get to the head of that pack, if it was that important to you...
If it ever came to us seeing what the government (any political lean to it) had in store for us, I think we’d still be ahead of the game...And I also believe in a short while that the effects on enforcement of that immoral policy/law would manifest itself very quickly into something very unpleasant...
But this is only insomuch in regards to how committed both sides are to their convictions...
If it weren't for the built in expiration of the AWB, itself a compromise by some Republicans, for their support on the bill, it would still be with us as there were too many RINOs in Congress to get a repeal past, even after the '94 election, which swept the R's into power, mostly on the basis of the 'Rats getting too far out in front.
You'll notice that the current incarnation of the AWB, HR 1022, (It picked up another cosponsor on April 16, it now has 41 cosponsors) which would ban virtually every semiautomatic rifle and shotgun, has no expiration built in.
Another factor is that voting for RINOs provides the Republican party with no incentive to move in the direction of being more conservative. After all, if we elect RINOs, that means that RINOs are electable and there will be more RINO candidates.
Of course it will be written in such a manor that it can be enforced that way.
Before long if you see a marriage counselor, before your marriage gets really on the rocks, perhaps through your church or through the program that many employers have, it will be bye bye RKBA, for both spouses.
But if you are a Jihadi going to your mosque for instructions on how to commit mass murder, the government will have to keep its hands off, separation of Church and State don't ya know.
That's true, but they can ask for unanimous consent at 0 Dark Thirty, as they did when they saw to it that the Assault Weapons Ban not be repealed back in '95 when the ban was only a year old, and Republicans had gained control of Congress in part because they said they'd repeal the ban.
Similarly the Brady Bill passed because of an agreement, at Oh Dark Thirty, with 3 senators present, to end the filibuster.
The assault weapons ban was not passed as a stand alone bill with a "pure" up and down vote, instead it was inserted into the Crime Bill, which was difficult to vote against in the first place, and easy to justify to your constituents, "even though" it contained the AWB.
Yep, it does, called the Brady Act, passed in '93 after Clinton became President. Somehow we got along without it before then, at a time when there were a lot more gun dealers, when guns could be bought through the mail from the Sears and Wards catalogs. When even "convenience stores" (that is "gas stations, like 7-11 only more local) sold ammunition and sometimes guns as well. When even Target sold ammunition and accouterments. And you could also buy gun in many hardware stores. Now, thanks again to Clintoon, when we have many fewer places to buy guns, and have to jump through more hoops to do so, we have all these school shootings, and other incidents of mass murder.
The law is not written in stone and need not be expanded just because it can be. We fought it then, or many of us did anyway, and we'll fight it now.
Most of us can still read and understand the Constitution. I remember my oath.
Molon Labe!
ping
Much of that was done by state associations, sometimes working against the NRA, sometimes with it. The NRA first opposed, rather than supporting, the case which saw the DC gun ban overturned by a Federal Appeals court on the basis that it violated the *individual* right *of the people* to keep and bear arms. The NRA has no such victories. Emerson, which the NRA did support, ended with what can be read as dicta in the case supporting an individual right, but the gun law concerned (Lautenberg Amendment) upheld, and with Emerson stripped of his RKBA, forever.
That said, there is room for both the 400 pound Gorrilla, the NRA, and the little yappy dog, GOA. I'm a member of both. I don't see the GOA grabbing members from NRA, certainly not many, but rather serving as a "rougher around the edges" group that does a better job of keeping the main issue to the forefront, and has probably helped turn the NRA around somewhat. These days La Pierre sounds more like Larry Pratt than Pratt himself sounded 10 or 15 years ago. Similarly the SAF/CCRKB provides a more "intellectual" counterpoint to both GOA and NRA. Then there is the JPFO, talk about edgy. Whoo FReeping Who!.
You really think Schumer voted to confirm Alito and Roberts?
i bought my first gun at age 18 at a sporting goods/camping supply store in NYC and took it home on the subway!so i do remember the good old days-it was an enfield mk5 jungle carbine and it had a real nasty recoil-the first time i fired it the extractor broke-anyhow-i believe the rules against nuts,felons,and illegal aliens possessing firearms predated the brady abomination by quite a bit
>You really think Schumer voted to confirm Alito and Roberts?
Good point. The court choices are worth fighting for.
Thanks, I’ve had a lot of go-arounds here at FR lately on that issue.
I’m pleased to hear from someone with a bit of common sense.
Yes, it is true that compromise is itself a slippery slope.
I am encouraged by some of our progress (expansion of the castle doctrine, for instance), but I regret how much ground we have lost and how the 1968 GCA abomination is still the law of the land.
I suspect that the only flames you'll find are in the lamps burning the midnight oil over at the GOA's fundraising department. Let's see now... We've got:
this is where I got into a little misunderstanding with what I wrote there...
My premise was that I just don’t see this type of gun-control legislation going anywhere...
Sure it’ll raise the BP of a few people, and it should raise it in all of us...
But the fact is that even with a liberal majority in both houses now, and an absolutely clear desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to sign stuff like this...
I don’t see it getting the legs to pass...
They are not quite ready for us yet...Hopefully they never will be...
Perhaps the NRA needs to counter: "Should individuals that would seek to use firearms criminally be allowed out on the streets?"
Here's a picture I hadn't seen before. A grant from the NRA to young shooters. Another thing the GOA doesn't do.
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.