Posted on 09/05/2007 3:59:47 PM PDT by processing please hold
Patrick Henry had it right. Forget the past, and you're destined to make the same mistakes in the future.
Gun control has been an absolute failure. Whether it's a total gun ban or mere background checks, gun control has FAILED to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
But gun control fanatics still want to redouble their efforts, even when their endeavors have not worked. Congress is full of fanatics who want to expand the failed Brady Law to such an extent that millions of law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to own or buy guns.
For months, GOA has been warning gun owners about the McCarthy-Leahy bill -- named after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). These anti-gun legislators have teamed up to introduce a bill that will expand the 1993 Brady Law and disarm hundreds of thousands of combat veterans -- and other Americans. (While McCarthy and Leahy are this year's primary sponsors, the notorious Senator Chuck Schumer of New York was a sponsor of this legislation in years past.)
Proponents of the bill tell us that it will bring relief for many gun owners. But to swallow this, one must first ignore the fact that gun owners would NOT NEED RELIEF in the first place if some gun owners (and gun groups) had not thrown their support behind the Brady bill that passed in 1993 and were not pushing the Veterans Disarmament Bill now.
Law-abiding Americans need relief because we were sold a bill of goods in 1993. The Brady Law has allowed government bureaucrats to screen law-abiding citizens before they exercise their constitutionally protected rights -- and that has opened the door to all kinds of abuses.
The McCarthy-Leahy bill will open the door to many more abuses. After all, do we really think that notorious anti-gunners like McCarthy and Leahy had the best interests of gun owners in mind when they introduced this Veterans Disarmament Bill? The question answers itself.
TRADE-OFF TO HURT GUN OWNERS
Proponents want us to think this measure will benefit many gun owners. But what sort of trade off is it to create potentially millions of new prohibited persons -- under this legislation -- and then tell them that they need to spend thousands of dollars to regain the rights THAT WERE NOT THREATENED before this bill was passed?
Do you see the irony? Gun control gets passed. The laws don't stop criminals from getting guns, but they invariably affect law-abiding folks. So instead of repealing the dumb laws, the fanatics argue that we need even more gun control (like the Veterans Disarmament Bill) to fix the problem!!!
So more people lose their rights, even while they're promised a very limited recourse for restoring those rights -- rights which they never would lose, save for the McCarthy-Leahy bill.
The legislation threatens to disqualify millions of new gun owners who are not a threat to society. If this bill is signed into law:
* As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms -- based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder;
* Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance);
* Your kid could be permanently banned from owning a gun, based on a diagnosis under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Patrick Henry said he knew of "no way of judging of the future but by the past." The past has taught us that gun control fanatics and bureaucrats are continually looking for loopholes in the law to deny guns to as many people as possible.
GUN CONTROL'S ABOMINABLE RECORD
A government report in 1996 found that the Brady Law had prevented a significant number of Americans from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets and errors. The General Accounting Office said that more than 50% of denials under the Brady Law were for administrative snafus, traffic violations, or reasons other than felony convictions.
Press reports over the years have also shown gun owners inconvenienced by NICS computer system crashes -- especially when those crashes happen on the weekends (affecting gun shows).
Right now, gun owners in Pennsylvania are justifiably up in arms because the police scheduled a routine maintenance (and shut-down) of their state computer system on the opening days of hunting season this year. The shut-down, by the way, has taken three days -- which is illegal.
And then there's the BATFE’s dastardly conduct in the state of Wyoming. The anti-gun agency took the state to court after legislators figured out a way to restore people's ability to buy firearms -- people who had been disarmed by the Lautenberg gun ban of 1996.
Gun Owners Foundation has been involved in this Wyoming case, and has seen up close how the BATFE has TOTALLY DISREGARDED a Supreme Court opinion which allows this state to do what they did. In Caron v. United States (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court said that any conviction which has been set aside or expunged at the state level "shall not be considered a conviction," under federal law, for the purposes of owning or buying guns. But the BATFE has ignored this Court ruling, and is bent on preventing states like Wyoming from restoring people's gun rights.
Not surprisingly, the BATFE has issued new 4473s which ASSUME the McCarthy-Leahy bill has already passed. The bill has not even been enacted into law yet, and the BATFE is already using the provisions of that bill to keep more people from buying guns.
The new language on the 4473 form asks:
Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs)....
Notice the words "determination" and "other lawful authority." Relying on a DETERMINATION is broader than just relying on a court "ruling," and the words OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY are not limited to judges. In other words, the definition above would allow a VA psychologist or a school shrink to take away your gun rights.
This is what McCarthy and Leahy are trying to accomplish, but the BATFE has now been emboldened to go ahead and do it anyway. This means that military vets could potentially commit a felony by buying a gun WITHOUT disclosing that they have Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome because a "lawful authority" has decreed that they are a potential danger to themselves or others.
No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to the McCarthy-Leahy bill. On June 18 of this year, the group stated, "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
MORE RESTRICTIONS, NOT RELIEF
Supporters, like the NRA, say that they were able to win compromises from the Dark Side -- compromises that will benefit gun owners. Does the bill really make it easier to get your gun rights restored -- even after spending lots of time and money in court? Well, that's VERY debatable, and GOA has grappled this question in a very lengthy piece entitled, Point-by-Point Response to Proponents of HR 2640.
In brief, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.
Incidentally, even before Schumer blocked the procedure, the ability to get "relief from disabilities" under section 925(c) was always an expensive long shot. Presumably, the new procedures in the Veterans Disarmament Act will be the same.
Isn't that always the record from Washington? You compromise with the devil and then get lots of bad, but very little good. Look at the immigration debate. Compromises over the last two decades have provided amnesty for illegal aliens, while promising border security. The country got lots of the former, but very little of the latter.
If the Veterans Disarmament Bill passes, don't hold your breath waiting for the promised relief.
ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Senator. You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center (where phone and fax numbers are also available).
You did not explain how an instant background check violates anyone's rights.
"Why should I have to prove anything to any body. I am not a criminal.
I assume this is an attempt at an explaination. the law doesn't ask you to prove anything. The law simply requires the FFL to run your name through the system to see if you've been up to anything in the past that would have resulted in a criminal conviction, or a determination by a court, or it's equal that you were determined to be a danger to yourself, or others due to mental defect.
"This law will also be a collection of all the LEGAL gun owners. It is just one large step towards making all guns illegal.
Ridiculous!
You are so far out of it, I may not be able to help you find your way back. But I’ll try.
First, felons... this was a non-issue prior to GCA ‘68. A felon was in prison until he served his sentence. Then his rights were pretty automatically restored, AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Once you pay the price for your crime, you are no longer a felon. If there is no way for you to pay for what you did, you do not belong back outside, ever. Somehow you seem to think that it’s OK to deny someone the right to defend himself even after the posted price for his transgression has been paid. Sorry, that’s the wrong answer.
Second, these alleged background checks are totally counter to the second amendment, period. They do NOTHING to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and only serve to irritate and inconvenience the otherwise law-abiding. There is NO constitutional or practical reason for them, exclamation point!
Your willingness to subject others to this sort of utterly UNConstitutional Barbra Striesand only serves to point up your utter disregard for the basic law of the land that the founders of this republic handed us. They gave neither fedgov nor any State the authority to in any way, shape or form, regulate or control personal, private ownership of weapons, whatsoever. Recall that they had just fought a war for independence from a monarch who was, himself, a gun-grabber, so they knew whereof they spoke. If they had wanted any limitations on weapons ownership, they would have said so.
And, from even the practical point of view, when there are ANY limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, CRIME INCREASES. When there are no limits, crime rates plummet. How often do we hear about murders and shootings in Vermont, for example? No, you are utterly wrong and misguided (to be charitable about it) and all the evidence there is shows that quite clearly. Yet you and the NRA are in denial about these simple facts of life because you can’t comprehend that ANY compromise in this area means eventual total disarmament of the civil populace unless it is totally reversed right now. And America does not need compromising weasels pretending to defend the Constitution. Not now or ever.
You have used the word Ridiculous at least twice. I agree with you.
“I deal in reality.”
No, you don’t.
Reality is knowing that regardless of any law, the insane and the criminals will get guns. They do not obey the law.
Reading your other posts, you are saying that those of us who defend the absolute right to KABA are incompetent and do not have a grasp on reality. You — like those who will be applying the laws to us — are just a step away from saying that we are too dangerous to have guns.
Molon Labe.
VERY good reply!
We... LOL! My power doesn't depend on being delegated by anyone. My power is the rational mind I was born with.
"LOL" -- it's not rational enough to realize what my 'your' referred to in context?
That same power is the foundaiton for the idea that folks can be free and operate as rational agents. It's was the felon's own power and will that determined their inelligibility and unworthiness to be recognized as a free ordinary citizen, since they chose to violate the rights of others to further their own ends.
In the case of mental defect, it's either inherent, caused, uncured, or cured. W/o cure, they are not rational agents. If cured, provisions for the restoration of their rights are provided by this bill.
You are saying that our rights to life, liberty or property can be denied, -- unless previous felonious conduct or mental defects are deemed 'cured', -- by an agency of gov't.
"-- in order to protect the rights of citizens in general, from these people, [released felons and mental defectives] they are justified in placing special limitations on them, that do not apply to citizens in general.
An instant background check violates the rights of general citizens to live free from unreasonable searches and "special limitations", -- ordinarily reserved for released felons and mental defectives..
Thank you, good sir.
And welcome aboard!
No,see attainder. A felon's loss of rights is permanent, and that concept was retained from old English common law.
"Second, these alleged background checks are totally counter to the second amendment, period. They do NOTHING to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and only serve to irritate and inconvenience the otherwise law-abiding. There is NO constitutional or practical reason for them, exclamation point!"
I asked for an explaination of how an instant background check violated anyone's rights. THere is no right, not to be inconvienced by an excersise of govm't intended to protect rights, especially the right to life. It's also petty to claim inconveinience, when the instant background check takes the time of a ping to the NCIS dbase, and a reply from the search engine.
An infringement, as referred to in the 2ns Amend, has meaning only as it is a violation of the right referred to in the 2nd. Now explain, oh wise one, how does an instant background check a violation of right(s).
"Your willingness to subject others to this sort of utterly UNConstitutional Barbra Striesand only serves to point up your utter disregard for the basic law of the land that the founders of this republic handed us"
Blah, blah, blah... Just answer the question. How does an instant background check violate rights.
Re: The founders
"If they had wanted any limitations on weapons ownership, they would have said so."
The founders are not the friggin boss. They produced a Constitution, Bill of Rights and the rest was left up to the future.
Spunk:
Still no substance, and you're repeating yourself.
Well, at least you didn't repeat "Ridiculous".
"No, you don’t.
No substance noted.
"you are saying that those of us who defend the absolute right to KABA are incompetent and do not have a grasp on reality. "
Y'all don't have a grasp of the right, nor do you understand it. Otherwise, I'd have seen an explaination of how an instant background check violates anyone's rights.
"You — like those who will be applying the laws to us — are just a step away from saying that we are too dangerous to have guns."
Paranoia compounded by deluison.
I seem to remember a war being fought in my Country to get away from the Old English Common law. This is not England.
The rights are forfeited by the individual that committs the crime, or suffers from the mental affliction. The "agency" of govm't that does that is the judiciary. IOWs these determination that a person has forfieted their rights is made by a court. In the case of mental defect, the rights forfeited can be redeemed by petitioning the court to recognize them again, on the basis of evidence provided, that the mental condition is no longer present.
"An instant background check violates the rights of general citizens to live free from unreasonable searches and "special limitations", -- ordinarily reserved for released felons and mental defectives.."
BS. A background check searches no one's person, property, private effects, or their private matters. A background check involves checking public records in a public database, by public employees. Also, all of the public records contained in the dbase concern and were generated by felons and mental defectives.
Your lnowledge of history is severely lacking. The founders embraced common law, before and after the Revolution.
Perhaps people who wanted to buy guns in Pennsylvania last weekend might be able to answer you better than I, since the so-called "instant background check" was down for days.
The an "instant background check" requirement provides an easy and immediate way for the government to capriciously and arbitrarily deny Second Amendment rights on a whim and without any immediate recourse. One need not be paranoid to believe that government would abuse such power, since recent history proves precisely that.
Like most of your legalistic pronouncements on this thread, the above is total BS.
"--- Let's take as an example what is possibly the most bedrock "common sense" gun control restriction on the books: the prohibition against the ownership or possession of firearms by convicted felons.
By "convicted felons" we mean those who have been convicted of a felony, but are no longer serving time or on probation, and have been released back into society.
There seems to be no comprehensive historical or legal investigation of this exception. The restriction seems not to have existed at the time the right to keep and bear arms was memorialized in the 1689 English or 1789 American Bill of Rights. The great commentator on the English common law, Sir William Blackstone, makes no reference to such an exception.
The first American court cases to discuss the exception appear in the early 1900s, suggesting that the state statutes creating the exception were also enacted at about that time.
Can an ex-felon be denied his right to free speech or free press? Can he be denied the right to assemble, or the free exercise of his religion? May convicted felons be subject to unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures? May they, upon arrest for a subsequent crime, be denied due process of law, the right to trial by jury and, when convicted, may they be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? ---"
Our Rights Are Absolute, But Not For [Felons] Public Safety
Address:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_149_24/ai_65910641
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can you answer Spunkets? -- I doubt you will even try.
Really? Prior to the invention of fingerprinting, there was no reliable way to tell whether a particular person had ever been convicted of a crime, beyond the fact that if the person was still breathing he had obviously not been executed, and that if a person was free of marks he had not been branded. The notion that old English common law would have required background checks for people to acquire weaponry when such checks would not be even remotely technologically feasible until over a century later is rather preposterous.
How would you suggest that the government under old English common law would have identified convicted felons who were neither executed nor branded?
Given that the concept of fingerprint classification was (per Wikipedia) developed around 1897, the emergence of the felon-in-possession rules around that time would hardly seem coincidental. Prior to that, I see no meaningful way such laws could have been enforced except by branding all persons who were to be forbidden armament; I'm unaware of any large-scale adoption of such a practice in any common-law country.
The system was scheduled to be down for 3 days at around the start of hunting season. I don't see that as a real denial of right, but an inconvenience. The existence of the system itself does not deny any right.
"The an "instant background check" requirement provides an easy and immediate way for the government to capriciously and arbitrarily deny Second Amendment rights on a whim and without any immediate recourse. One need not be paranoid to believe that government would abuse such power, since recent history proves precisely that."
The only rights denied would be those involved with engaging in commerce. It is not a tool that could be used to deny the right to keep and bear arms. The only tool the govm't has to do that are their military and paramilitary police orgs. The NO action after Katrina is an example of that, not Rendell's bogus move in PA.
WRT most of your drivel, others have debunked you. WRT the Constitution and the Founders, they stated quite clearly that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. End of story. They put in a provision to AMEND the Constitution if events and time so warranted. There have been NO amendments passed which grant fedgov this sort of authority, whatsoever. If you claim otherwise, PROVE IT. Otherwise, your spiel is just so much eyewash.
And, as I previously stated, government has been granted NO AUTHORITY to determine who may or may not own or possess a weapon of any sort. Not one bit. Usurping such authority is utterly inconsistent with the Constitution and totally out of bounds. That you continue to rationalize this sort of thing makes you one dangerous and deluded dude (or dudette) and thus not qualified to own a firearm.
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.