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).
Disenfranchisement is based on the concept of attainder. It means the rights were forfieted by commission of the felony and the legelature can apply whatever limitations on felons that they see fit to. That means the legelatures, in any matter, including the matter of guns, can and did prohibit felons from possessing them. It's really simple. It's Constitutional and has been recognized as such by the courts.
Just one question please. Do you now or have you or a family member ever worked for the BATF? Cause frankly, I don’t know where the sam hill you’re coming from.
Actually it wasn't that specific. He was adjudicated, by a "Special Court" judge (no jury) as : "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."
But he was specifically not adjudicated as:"Presents an imminent danger to others as a result of mental illness."
It sounds from this ABC News article (from where the quotes above came), as if the Special Court is pretty much a rubber stamp for the findings of the shrinks.
What's to stop a similar "Special Court" from reviewing the records of Veterans diagnosed as having PTSD and issuing similar findings? (Only maybe adding "and others" to the "danger to self")
I put my J.C.Higgins (Sears) pump shotgun on my bike and rode through my state's Capital City on my way out of town to go hunting.
When I was too little for the shotgun, I did the same with my BB gun. That one I rode right through a "suburban" business district (Actually and old town center whose town was long before incorporated into the city). Policeman "stopped" me once. Asked where I was going (to my Great Uncle's Farm). Told me to "be careful" and said something like Have fun". I was and I did.
In those pre '68 days, even gas stations/convienence stores sold both guns and ammunition. (And much less junk food).
It takes a jury, often two of them (including a Grand Jury and a Petite Jury) or a guilty plea, to legally make someone a felon. It apparently only takes a "special court judge" to declare someone legally mentally defective.
And the concept of “attainder” was ANATHEMA to the Founders... if it weren’t, they would not have OUTLAWED it. But go ahead and cling to your delusions. I won’t trouble you further.
Yes, I acknowledged that somewhere close by to that response. The fact that they can do such a thing doesn't alter the utility, or justification for the background check.
"If the folks were truly disqualified , they were committing a crime by trying to buy a gun. Why weren't they arrested?
The police hav ethe power of prosecutorial discretion and various legitimate reasons for not making an immediate arrest. In these cases however, the discretion is being used in a way that is clearly not for a legitimate purpose, such as gathering intel. It's been used to allow the known disqualified to pursue their quests in alternate channels unhindered and unmonitored. It shows they are not interested in reducing criminal activity from those that are showing an interest in using guns. The lack of follow up on the multiple purchase forms shows the same thing.
"Isn't your thesis that mere diagnosis would not be a disqualifier?"
That's correct.
"Was Chu adjudicated by a court or similar body as danger to himself or others?"
Yes. Chu, like the others that end up with this disqualification, was arrested for stalking women. The police and the judge noted that he had mental problems, so the judge ordered an evaluation. Cho volunteered, so the judge didn't have to force the order. the docs said he was a danger to himself. The judge acknowledged that, agreed with the docs and found him to be a danger to himself. That court finding by the judge, based on the evidence presented, was the adjudication.
Cho skirted VA law by agreeing to the evaluation. Had he not done so, and the judge forced the matter, Cho would have been disqualified under VA law. VA would have forwarded the disqual under VA law to the fed NCIS dbase. Since present fed law makes forwarding fed disqualifiers to the NCIS dbase voluntary, VA, like some states, just don't volunteer it. This law makes forwarding of fed disqualifiers a must. It also requires that an effective remedy exist to remove the disqualifier if the mental status changes.
Some States have rather strict and petty disqualifiers. IL considers alcohol treatment a disqualifier under their law. They forward that info to the fed dbase. That State disqualifier can be removed, but IL requires a 5 year wait. IL's a grabber State.
Speaking of the NRA, how beneficial have they been in getting concealed carry passed in your state, WI? What....you can't carry....oh....guess your rights have been INFRINGED!
And the concept of “attainder” was ANATHEMA to the Founders... if it weren’t, they would not have OUTLAWED it.
Disenfranchisement can be suspended, I suppose, as it is a “right” granted by the State. RKBA, on the other hand, is NOT GRANTED BY THE STATE, but by God Almighty and only HE can permanently remove it from us. The MOST we can do is suspend that right for the duration of the time someone is incarcerated. After that, he’s PAID his “debt to society” and no NATURAL right can be attainted, period, end of story.
But go ahead and cling to your delusions. I won’t trouble you further.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
And section 10: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Yes, a jury can attain a felon when sentence is passed. A legislative act cannot.
No.
"if it weren’t, they would not have OUTLAWED it."
You're mistaking attainder, with bill of attainder. They are different. I already explained the diffence on the thread. A bill of attainder is a law passed by a legislature that effects the rights of one, or more persons in particular and most often by name, regardless of whether they're felons. A bill of attainder's subject is the particular person(s), not anything like a class of felon. It violates the concept of equal protection under the law, w/o justification.
"But go ahead and cling to your delusions. I won’t trouble you further."
If you're going to profess that you know something, it's wise to actually know what you're talking about.
See 191, attainder and Bill of attainder are 2 different things, that I previously covered on the thread. I gave a link to the concept and history of attainder and a simple google will drum up more. Attainder is used by legilatures to restrict the rights of felons. The right to vote is one example, and has even been used to justify some state constitutional entries regarding that.
"Speaking of the NRA, how beneficial have they been in getting concealed carry passed in your state, WI? "
they were very beneficial. It didn't pass here, because of the betrayal of the rat sponsor of the Assembly bill. WI put a rat gov in office, because the electorate voted for pork, and the gov's bro took away a county's regioal vote on a Libertarian ticket. Doyle's an enthusiastic grabber. He vetoed the law 4 times. The legeslative override failed the first time by one vote. That was the turncoat rat sponsor of the Ass'y bill. His betrayal continued on through the following attempts to override the veto. Each time, the override failed by no more than a 1-2 votes. Keep in mind that the NRA has no power over folks, other than persuation, and it's the NRA member that have the most power to do that.
That makes no sense. Attainder is not a right, neither are rights granted by states. Also it makes no sense to suspend attainder, since it is not some perpetual thing that applies.
"RKBA, on the other hand, is NOT GRANTED BY THE STATE, but by God Almighty and only HE can permanently remove it from us"
It's forfeited by the person committing a felony, just like all their other rights chief. That's the way the law considers it.
"The MOST we can do is suspend that right for the duration of the time someone is incarcerated."
The law doesn't agree with you.
"no NATURAL right can be attainted, period, end of story."
LOL! The law doesn't agree with you, nor do I.
Why thank ye kind sir!
The fed disqualifier is an or thing.
"the Special Court is pretty much a rubber stamp for the findings of the shrinks."
No. The court conducts competency hearings. It's quite difficult to get a negative ruling, unless hte evidence clearly shows there's a mental defect. Cho was entitled to his own counsel and docs, but didn't go that route and he was a no show for all follow up and treatment. form my experience, most psychiatrists would have picked up on Cho being a paranoid schiz. Psychologists wouldn't. Regardless, there is nothing sinister about the process. It begins with the defendant being arrested and charged with criminal behavior. Usually it's perverted criminal behavior, like Cho's stalking of strange women that did not know him and did not want to know him.
"What's to stop a similar "Special Court" from reviewing the records of Veterans diagnosed as having PTSD and issuing similar findings?"
The law. The vet records involve voluntary treatment and such, where there's been no criminal activity. The fed disqual does not include any voluntary treatment, or commitment. It's only involuntary commitment, or an entry into the system through criminal activity that gets one disqualified. Fed law excludes responsible folks that seek help for their problems, and that certainly excludes vets, unless they're committing crimes.
Since I am new here, I don’t know if this ‘thinking’ of yours has been exposed prior to this thread, but you are surely outed today.
A right is not subject to government approval. If it is reduced to that, it is a privilege, not a right.
The enemies of this once free nation control the groups that loudly proclaim their support of gun owners. They boast and strut around claiming great deeds and loudly proclaim what a good job they are doing. They can print slick magazines and really spread a great line of bull. The gun owners are being subjected to the death of a thousand cuts. The gun control group know the free citizens of this Nation will not allow the the government to seize the guns now. They hope do it using small laws that individually mean very little. A wall is put up one brick at a time but it is still a wall when it is completed. They hope the peasants will not wake up and put an end to their plan. Just go back to sleep little sheepies, don’t look at the big bad wolf that is standing beside your bed.
I mentioned this is not England for a reason. England has many gun laws and I am very sure you would be very happy there.
I really wish you would learn some new words. “Ridiculous” is getting old.
You never did answer the question about an angry ex-spouse putting an ex-s name on that little black list. :0)
The NRA dumped a lot of money in Wisconsin trying to get the CCW bill passed. I was also involved with the CCW fight both times and I live in Texas and I’m an NRA member.
It seems to be so easy for do nothings who sit on the sidelines and don’t do anything except bitch and complain about others.
Now what did you and your GOA have ever done in their entire existence? Name one incident where they did something on their own. Anything. At all.
Take your time.
Now what did you and your GOA have ever done in their entire existence? Name one incident where they did something on their own. Anything. At all.
First of all you ignorant fool, I'm not a "do nothing" sitting on the sidelines. You already know that I spend every day trying to protect our gun RIGHTS working with Second Amendment Sisters.
Now, what has SAS done lately - only gotten the AG in PA to clarify the law on out of state FL CCW licenses being accepted by the police....see SAS PA Coordinator gets Clarification of CCW Guidelines. It was SAS that organized the counter protest at REALco guns in District Heights, MD last month to stand up to the Je$$e Jackass/Brady crowd.
Just what have you accomplished...let's see it in print, not the stuff you have stuck away in your NRA deluded brain. You sit here and preach for the NRA but I'm not aware of anything you've personally done to preserve our rights except to send money to the big building in Fairfax. As I said earlier, the NRA is no different than Je$$e Jackass, et al.....keep the peasants down on the farm while they sit in their big glass towers "fighting for our rights" and getting fatter on our $$$.
The background check does not amount to a limitation of the person's right to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the check, is to deny those who don't have any right to possess guns, from obtaining them through licensed dealers. It's a limitation placed on the fed licensed FFL that's engaged in interstate commerce. The approval is given to the FFL for the transaction, not the person buying.
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.