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).
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,
Exactly the problem, Sarah.
because you plead the 5th plus, and refused to answer the simple, relevant questions on the form.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why The Instant Background Check Is A Bad Idea
by Larry Pratt
www.gunowners.org Jan 2007
Congress has legislation before it to expand the Instant Background Check, aka the Brady Law. Rather than expand the program, it should be abolished.
Since the background check is mostly defended on its value in supposedly "keeping guns out of the wrong hands," let's consider that idea.
If we were to do away with the Instant Background Check, the question is frequently asked, how would we keep guns out of the wrong hands. The answer is, we would be as successful without the check as with it. How do we know?
The Centers for Disease Control, an anti-gun federal agency, has examined several studies that focused on guns and crime. Their conclusion? They found that there is no impact from gun control laws, including the Brady Law, on crime.
More dramatic evidence comes from the "laboratory" of England. This island nation has banned handguns. They don't need a background check because there are no legitimate sales. Following the confiscation of over 1.5 million guns, including all legally owned handguns in 1997, violent crime has skyrocketed. Illegal handguns are estimated by police to number over 3,000,000. According to a UN study in 2000, England is the most violent of all the world's industrial countries. Unless England can figure out how to keep guns out of the "wrong hands"' how does anyone expect an instant background check to do anything? Even if a criminal did not have a friend or a false ID, it would not be difficult to get a gun in other ways.
So, if the Instant Background Check is useless, why are we violating the Constitution which gives no authority to the federal government to regulate guns?
Moreover, the background check is based on a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused ("Why do you need a gun?") to prove his innocence -- a total reversal of the presumption of innocence required in our legal system.
An equivalent to the background check to buy a gun would be to run a background check on people before they can become reporters or preachers -- or before they can send letters to the editor. Well, some have argued, we have laws against shouting "fire" in a theater, so why not a similar prior restraint with the background check.
Other than the fact that the background check does no good, there is no equivalence. The equivalent to shouting "fire" in a theater is to use a gun illegally. No background checks are run on those entering theaters and the legal consequences of shouting "fire" are only imposed after the deed is done.
Mission creep, a problem with all government programs, is evident with the Instant Background Check. In 1996, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) snuck a massive expansion of who is prohibited from owning a gun into law as an amendment on a spending bill. Thanks to Lautenberg, the rules were changed in the middle of the game -- violating the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws. People who had paid a minimal fine for a misdemeanor domestic violence violation -- shouting or shoving, but not physically harming one another (which would be a felony) -- all of a sudden became prohibited from owning guns.
Cops and soldiers could no longer carry weapons, and many were discharged from service.
Now Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) wants to radically build on Lautenberg's law by sending a billion dollars to the states for scooping up even more names of people to send to the federal data base of prohibited persons. Included in this attack on liberty will be veterans who had the shakes after a battle and were sent to a mental institution. That sure seems to fit the category of "no good deed goes unpunished."
In order to satisfy the federales' lust for prohibiting gun ownership, McCarthy's measure would require that the states send the feds 90% of all relevant information needed to know all who "should" be prohibited from owning guns.
What is relevant? The bill does not say. Give a bureaucrat an inch and he will take a mile.
In order to make sure that illegal aliens and other prohibited persons don't own guns, you will watch all of your tax records, health history and much more go into the FBI's computers in West Virginia.
McCarthy's measure will end up as gun registration on steroids.
Not only will every gun owner be able to be tagged, but everybody's personal information can end up in a centralized police data base.
Now I know what the eye at the top of the pyramid on our one dollar bills is for -- it's keeping an eye on everything about everybody!
McCarthy's assault-legislation is aimed at the privacy of every single American -- whether they own a gun or not. Every single American should oppose Carolyn McCarthy's bill (H.R. 297).
People should not be bedazzled by the mantra that "All we need to do is enforce the gun laws we have." We should do no such thing -- particularly when they are both unconstitutional and useless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good case... One that by all 'RIGHTS' should close the issue.
Instead, we get Spunket type reasoning:
"-- There's no right not to be subject to [background checks] --"
This 'concept' turns the principles of our Constitution upside down.
"On a wider basis her labors have re-enforced the essential separation of powers. The police may not interpret laws. It is not their prerogative to choose which laws to uphold and how they will be enforced. The Attorney General interprets regulations and the State Police follow his guidelines."
The situation in PA did not involve separation of powers. The matter involved the boss telling his employees to knock off the law breaking and giving instructions to follow it. The AG and the police are part of the executive branch, that administers and enforces the law. Both the AG and the police interpret the law, as anyone must. It's published and written in plain English so folks can do that. If it's cryptic, or contested, as often occurrs, the official interprtation is given by the courts, not the AG.
Both the police and the ag have powers of prosecutorial discretion. The police can choose to enforce the law as they see fit to. They can choose which laws to focus on also. The only limitations are through policy directives expressed, or implied.
I'm sure this case did not involve prosecutorial discretion. It involved the police and prosecutors breaking the law, and otherwise making it up as they went along. They do not have power. That power belongs to the legislature. Apparently the legilature acted to cause FL CC licenses to be honored in PA. The State Police there chose to break the law, and not honor them. It wasn't a matter of interpretation, it was a matter of breaking the law and making up their own.
The police and prosecutors in IL were doing the same. Breaking the law and making up their own. In one case, a MN farmer was arrested for "unlawful use of a weapon" for having one, or two unloaded, cased firearm(s) in his truck when down for a family visit. I was involved in the case and so was the NRA. It was NRA members that helped him get cleared, and get the law changed, so that the illegal prosecutions were much more difficult to accomplish.
NRA members volunteer theit time and resources for such things all the time, and they are effective.
"-- There's no right not to be subject to [background checks] --"
This 'concept' turns the principles of our Constitution upside down.
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.
Licensing dealers is an infringement.
The purpose of the check is to establish the concept that government has a 'legitimate' power to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.
It's [ a background check] a limitation placed on the fed licensed FFL that's engaged in interstate commerce.
Lawyerly wordplay, -- a background check is a limitation placed on the individual that's engaged in the commerce of buying a gun.
The approval is given to the FFL for the transaction, not the person buying.
The approval is given to the licensed gov't agent, -- which 'permits' the person to buy a gun.
-- Obviously, the persons right to buy arms has been infringed by the permit process itself.
Unless you engage in lawyerly wordplay, Spunkets style.... .
No one is searched, so your argument's empty.
From Pratt: "Moreover, the background check is based on a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused ("Why do you need a gun?") to prove his innocence -- a total reversal of the presumption of innocence required in our legal system."
Ridiculous. Nothing is presumed, and the buyer doesn't have to prove, or say anything about "why". The check applies to the validity of the transaction. FFLs are not allowed to sell to prohibited persons.
Again from Pratt: " If we were to do away with the Instant Background Check, the question is frequently asked, how would we keep guns out of the wrong hands. The answer is, we would be as successful without the check as with it. How do we know?
The Centers for Disease Control, an anti-gun federal agency, has examined several studies that focused on guns and crime. Their conclusion? They found that there is no impact from gun control laws, including the Brady Law, on crime."
This is simply illogical propaganda. The intent of the background check is to keep felons and psychotics from obtaining firearms in the legitimate market. to that end, it is near 100% effective.
"An equivalent to the background check to buy a gun would be to run a background check on people before they can become reporters or preachers -- or before they can send letters to the editor."
Background checks are run on these people. They're also run for various other pre-hires, such as teachers, sales persons, lock smiths, ect...
"why are we violating the Constitution which gives no authority to the federal government to regulate guns?"
the Constitution gives Congress the express authority to regulate interstate commerce. Commerce is all inclusive and there's no exclusions, such as the gun market given. A background check involves limiting the commerce to those with the right to do so, and excluding those that have forfeited their right to do so. There's no problem with Constitutionality.
"In order to satisfy the federales' lust for prohibiting gun ownership, McCarthy's measure would require that the states send the feds 90% of all relevant information needed to know all who "should" be prohibited from owning guns. What is relevant? The bill does not say. Give a bureaucrat an inch and he will take a mile."
LOL! The bill is explicit about what info is required. That is any info that is evidence, that a person is disqualified, under 18USC922xx. I don't think Pratt could find his ass if it was handed to him.
In one case, a MN farmer was arrested for "unlawful use of a weapon" for having one, or two unloaded, cased firearm(s) in his truck when down for a family visit.
I was involved in the case and so was the NRA.
Did your argument touch on the point that police cannot "choose to enforce the law as they see fit", -- that they are sworn to support our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land?
No. Licensing dealers is a valid exercise of the Commerce clause. Infringements of the 2nd must be found elsewhere.
"The purpose of the check is to establish the concept that government has a 'legitimate' power to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms."
The purpose of the check is to limit the commerce to people with rights and to keep those that have forfieted them out of the market. To that end, it is near 100% effetive, and is so w.o violating anyone's rights.
"Unless you engage in lawyerly wordplay,"
BS. The background check results in a response that refers to whether the transaction is legal, or not.
Obviously, I covered prosecutorial discretion, and you are wrong.
No one is searched, so your argument's empty.
Empty logic. -- You admit the database is searched to see if the individual is a "prohibited person".
Pratt:
"why are we violating the Constitution which gives no authority to the federal government to regulate guns?"
the Constitution gives Congress the express authority to regulate interstate commerce.
No, -- it says Congress can regulate commerce, " among the several States", -- not among the people within the States. -- And "to regulate" does not authorize prohibitions.
Commerce is all inclusive and there's no exclusions, such as the gun market given.
Thank you Sarah, for your unsupported opinion.
A background check involves limiting the commerce to those with the right to do so, and excluding those that have forfeited their right to do so. There's no problem with Constitutionality.
Depriving persons of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; -- always raises "problems with Constitutionality"
You've simply 'bought into' the authoritarian gov't view that gun rights can be infringed by so-called 'reasonable regulations'
Did your argument touch on the point that police cannot "choose to enforce the law as they see fit", -- that they are sworn to support our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land?
Obviously, I covered prosecutorial discretion, and you are wrong.
Obviously, you can't explain away your confused logic, -- so you call me "wrong", - without support.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
I resent the allegation that myself and my fellow NRA members are controlled, especially when the allegation claims that we are controlled by enemies of the US, and freedom itself.
"England has many gun laws and I am very sure you would be very happy there."
Ridiculous.
"You never did answer the question about an angry ex-spouse putting an ex-s name on that little black list."
I never saw the question. There are 2 ways that could happen. A temp restraining order could be issued, and/or a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence could have occurred. The denial of rights that occurrs in both cases is unconstitutional. The power to issue a restraining order does not include the power to deny rights. The power is limited to issuing orders that are limited to prohibiting acts which the person the order applies to, has no inherent right to do. That means the order can prohibit contact, but it can not deny rights, or property. The fact that legislatures have created laws which deny specific rights and property in this case, is not justified, because it is simply prior restraint and a violation of equal protection under the law.
As far as Lautenberg goes, it is unconstitutional, because attainder does not apply and it therefore stands as a pure ex-post facto law for some. For new convictions, it stands as an unwarranted denial of right, because attainder still does not apply, a violation of equal protection, and prior restraint.
Regardless of the fact that the denial of right in restraining orders and Lautenberg are abominations, they do not effect the utility and validity of the background check. Those abominable laws can and should be addressed on their own.
LOL!
"Thank you Sarah, for your unsupported opinion."
Have a nice life.
Carolyn McCarthy is a dumb hausfrau who unfortunately represents my childhood congressional district, once held by the great Norman Lent.
The purpose of the check is to establish the concept that government has a 'legitimate' power to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.
Licensing dealers is an infringement.
No. Licensing dealers is a valid exercise of the Commerce clause. Infringements of the 2nd must be found elsewhere.
Round you go, justifying infringements of the 2nd by stretching the power of regulating commerce.
Prohibitive licensing, - of who can 'legally' sell guns, -- does not improve commerce among the several States. -- Except in Sarah's imagination.
The purpose of the check is to limit the commerce to people with rights and to keep those that have forfieted them out of the market.
Gotta love black markets.
To that end, it is near 100% effetive, and is so w.o violating anyone's rights.
That's a hoot. -- We've been gradually losing our RKBA's to the 'regulation' concept of 1968, -- the criminal use of guns is unabated, -- yet you claim the concept "--is near 100% effective --".
Quite simply, you're engaging in lawyerly wordplay.
BS. The background check results in a response that refers to whether the transaction is legal, or not.
The concept that 'transactions can be made illegal' is finally being challenged, as it should have been in 1968.
As a conservative lawyer, you should support that challenge. It's telling that you do not.
No, -- it says Congress can regulate commerce, " among the several States", -- not among the people within the States. -- And "to regulate" does not authorize prohibitions.
Commerce is all inclusive and there's no exclusions, such as the gun market given.
Thank you Sarah, for your unsupported opinion. -- You've simply 'bought into' the authoritarian gov't view that gun rights can be infringed by so-called 'reasonable regulations'
Have a nice life.
211 by spunkets ("Freedom is about authority")
Apt tag line.. -- Did you decide to quit the field?
Are you serious?
Do you really believe that load of bull?
An infringement is an infringement regardless of the middlemen involved.
The onus should be in the form of punishment for the person whose rights have been abrogated via due process. Buy (steal) or possess a gun when you are prohibited and face harsh penalties. As it is now, the innocent and law abiding are treated as criminals who must prove their innocence in order to exercise their rights. That’s just plain wrong.
What's really interesting to see here is the people who claim to be gun rights supporters, but in reality are NRA supporters. The NRA is in no way a gun rights supporting group; they have called for the enforcement of all the outrageous unconstitutional laws that clutter the books. The NRA are the biggest gun-grabbers of all.
Would you be in favor of a law requiring DNA checks to determine if a man is really the father of a child?.
I live in another county now and the bootleggers operate out in the open. The Sheriff will not bother them until it gets close to election day. Then the law will make a raid to show the peons that he means business. I have heard that he gets them all together and has them draw straws to see who will take the fall. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is not the truth.
"As it is now, the innocent and law abiding are treated as criminals who must prove their innocence in order to exercise their rights. That’s just plain wrong."
As I said, no buyer has to prove anything, nor are they treated as criminals. The buyer fills out the form. The FFL calls in with the info, gets a go/nogo on the proposed transaction and it's done. No one is searched, nor are their rights violated. The only way info about anyone can end up in the dbase, is if they generate it themselves, by causing a court action that results in a felony conviction, adjudicated psychotic, or got involved in a domestic.
There's lots of other things that are rights violations. Like the domestic, gun bans, licencing, ect... to focus on. I don't see this as a violation, or anythng to be concerned over. To oppose it in the present political and social climate is negligent, because it would allow felons and psychotics to walk in and buy off the shelf, and has the pollitical impact of painting an a pic of gun owners as negligent, uncaring folks.
Actually the AG will interpret the law, and enforce his interpretation. Only after the fact, and lots of lawyers and money (for the lawyers) will the courts interpret the law, sometimes, sometimes they punt.
A good example of this involves the Texas law on carrying handgun in a vehicle. That's always been legal in Texas, if one was traveling. Problem, traveling wasn't defined, so over the years the test for what constituted traveling was made every more limited. Some jurisdictions would require a journey crossing a county line, then two county lines, and finally they began to require an overnight stay. Judges upheld all that, even though the common sense and dictionary definition of traveling was "going somewhere". Finally the people had enough, and so the legislature finally defined traveling as "going somewhere", anywhere, while not otherwise committing any crime other than a traffic violation (the Leg was on to the game you see). Still the legislature otherwise left the law as it was, which made traveling a "defense to prosecution". Certain jurisdictions, Houston you know who you are, stated their intent to continue making arrests and prosecuting people found with concealed handguns in their vehicles and making them *prove* they were traveling. Well the legislature didn't much care for that defiance of their clear intent, so they finally reworded the law itself, to make having a handgun in a vehicle an exception to the no unlicensed concealed carry law. The new version went into effect last Saturday, and I've not noticed any (more) blood running the streets.
Another wonderful example of "interpretation" involves Nebraska. Around 1988 the people of the state passed, by initiative, a constitutional amendment, adding the words "“and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof ,and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.” in the state Constitution, which prior to that had no RKBA provision. Since then, several localities have "interpreted" "no subdivision may" to mean "we can", and no such law, let alone any state or local (all counties and towns/cities are considered "subdivisions" of the state) laws existing before the passage of the constitutional amendment, have been overturned as violating that new provision of the state Constitution. This includes laws against open carry and concealed carry (which pretty much define "bearing") as well as laws restricting or banning possession (keeping).
So much for "interpretation".
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.