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).
He has no proof. He’s pulling stuff out his butt and hoping we won’t see the brown stuff or notice the smell...
BS, and all I smell here is your ad hominems.
I already did, in a post to you.
Pitiful claim. You merely offered your unsupported opinion that the concept of attainder applies:
WI prohibits felons from voting and prohibits felons from possessing guns.
dcm:
He has no proof. He?s pulling stuff out ---
Sad case. He's ruining his own credibility to defend what, -- Sarah Brady's wish list?
Under our Constitution, it was not "transplanted". Wisconsin doesn't use the concept as you claimed.
You didn't even know what it was, refused to look into it, and continue to deny that it's been applied by legilatures, including Congress in the US.
"Under our Constitution, it was not "transplanted"."
Yes it was, the ignorance of Jeff Snyder nothwithstanding.
"Wisconsin doesn't use the concept as you claimed."
Completely ridiculous!
Hey paine. You still haven't answered the question. How does a background check infringe on anyone's rights? Are you going to answer the question, or are you going to continue the libelous claim that I support Sara Brady's gun grabbing wish list.
spunkets: I already did, in a post to you.
"Pitiful claim. You merely offered your unsupported opinion that the concept of attainder applies:
Yeah, whatever. Remain ignorant and continue to press for gang bangers, rapists, other violent felons and psychopaths to have free unfettered access to the legitimate gun market, because you and the GOA claim they have ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.
And you trust what Dingell has to say???? Do you work for the NRA? This is a VERY, VERY bad bill!!!!!
Thank you! You are so correct! The NRA is only looking out for themselves - preserving their large salaries and fancy building in Fairfax! Kinda like the “gun version” of Je$$e Jackass & Al Shakedown - keep the slaves down on the farm!
You didn't even know what it was,
We've been arguing that point for quite a few posts now; -- I posted at #116 a rebuttal to one of your claims, which you still ignore.
refused to look into it, and continue to deny
Jeff Snyder's article is the one you deny, not me.
that it's been applied by legilatures, including Congress in the US.
"Attainder" has been applied by Congress to prohibit felons from owning guns? -- Prove it.
" Under our Constitution, attainder was not "transplanted.
Yes it was, the ignorance of Jeff Snyder nothwithstanding.
Refute his article. You can't.
Wisconsin doesn't use the concept as you claimed."
Completely ridiculous!
There you go again, stuck on "ridiculous" repetition. Amusing.
Thank God you and most other FReepers see what a horrible thing this bill is.
This thread has been fascinating to watch. In the end it’s a gun grab pure and simple.
Dingell's comments are contained in the Congressional Record, and as such carry the weight of elaborating on the true meaning of what adjudication involves. It is as he says in the law.
"This is a VERY, VERY bad bill!!!!!"
Why.
I've made both: --
# 106: -- 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..
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.
A background check involves searching supposedly public records in a supposedly public database, by public employees, AFTER the individual is made to agree to that search, under penalty of perjury, in order to purchase a gun. -- It's an unreasonable coerced infringement.
Also, all of the public records contained in the dbase concern and were generated by felons and mental defectives.
Bet me I have access to those 'public' records.
It is truly amazing to see you defend this concept. - Do you work for the system?
I’m not going to wrestle with you like some of the others. My mama always taught me - “When you wrestle with a pig in the mud: you both get dirty and the pig loves it.”
Trying to get you to learn reading comprehension would be like wrestling with a pig....I’d get dirty and you’d still not be able to comprehend a simple sentence.
All that is evidence of is DISENFRANCHISEMENT. Has ZILCH to do with firearms or RKBA. You’re still trying to blow smoke.
Ridiculous. No one is being searched. Public records are being searched and the reason for the public record search is to prevent known criminals and psychotics from buying a gun in the legitimate market. Preventing known criminals and psychotics from engaging in that legitimate market is a reasonable thing to do. It would be gross negligence to do otherwise given the technology for the instant check exists.
"A background check involves searching supposedly public records in a supposedly public database, by public employees, AFTER the individual is made to agree to that search, under penalty of perjury, in order to purchase a gun. -- It's an unreasonable coerced infringement."
The records are public records-all of them, because they were generated by the action of a court. They are contained in a public database. There's nothing supposed about them being public. Also, there's no agreement required, or even implied. That idea is just stupid. The FFL must submit the name of the buyer. Are you going to tell me that submitting your name is a friggin' unwarranted search and invasion of your privacy? Under penalty of perjury my ass. The 44xx form asks various quesions regarding fed diabilities. Either answer them, or plead the 5th and walk. The US is not going to allow enemies of the US, felons, dangerous mental deficients and other such characters to engage in legitimate gun commerce. To do so would be gross negligence and reasonable people would call such negligence monumental stupidity. So if you want to assert your right to be monumentally stupid, go right ahead. It's a free country and you can preserve your precious right to do so.
"It's an unreasonable coerced infringement."
Ya poor bastard. The world doesn't operate according to the monumentally stupid. The US will protect your right to act that way, but it won't recognize your right to buy a gun, because you plead the 5th plus, and refused to answer the simple, relevant questions on the form.
"Bet me I have access to those 'public' records."
I don't gamble and the statement os unclear. Although you can't access the dbase itself, because you're not a rep of an LEA, all the records can be obtained from the various primary sources which provide them. Those are all the courts that generated them.
"It is truly amazing to see you defend this concept."
What concept, the concept of a background check? There's no right not to be subject to one, nor is there a right for felons and dangerous metal cases to possess a gun, since they've been removed by due process of law. THe 2nd Amend refers to the right of the people. The people referred to are not those that have forfieted their rights by committing felonies, or those who have lost them by virtue of due process in a court of law due to their providing evidence to the court that they are a danger to themselves, or others, by virtue of mental defect. The people are also not enemies of the US.
I see. No substance.
Sure he would, just not from that gun dealer. He'd buy 'em out of a car trunk somewhere. All those thousands of folks supposedly denied by the Brady Checks, and how many arrests? Few if any. If the folks were truly disqualified , they were committing a crime by trying to buy a gun. Why weren't they arrested? After all they put their name and address on the form 4473. They shouldn't be too hard to find.
Isn't your thesis that mere diagnosis would not be a disqualifier? Was Chu adjudicated by a court or similar body as danger to himself or others? If not, he would not have been prevented from buying the firearms and ammuniton from a dealer. If so, why was he out walking around?
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.