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).
Carolyn
Cho was disqualified by a court in VA to possess guns and ammo. VA decided not to enter the records for that fed disqualification into the fed database. This law requires those records to be entered, so when a background check is run, those records show up.
That's right, he wouldn't be able to buy any guns through commercial channels. That's the point of including all the records. The rest is irrelevant.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the NRA is largely responsible for every stinking gun law on the books. It is for that reason alone that GOA exists in the first place. Compromise with the devil is not part of the second amendment.
I watched the BS of 1968 pass, followed in 1986 by the further BS that resulted in the completion of undergunning the public vis-a-vis government. When it comes to gun law the NRA is on the losing side IMHO.
I have been an NRA member 5 times, and every single time they engage in some moronic compromise, or back a candidate that has a less than stellar second amendment record, or decide so and so ought to be on the board versus the individual who truly supports Rights.
Pay your dues and watch your gun rights go down the river. Not my idea of fun. Looks to me like the NRA has been in the pockets of the politicians for years. They don’t want a solution to second amendment abusers, and gun grabbers, just keep all the hunters on the reservation.
So, How many criminals do you think buy their guns and ammo through commercial channels?.
I support both organizations but neither the NRA, nor GOA is the "alpha and omega" of gun rights organizations. Organizations such as JPFO, SAF, SAS, and RWVA are just as important in this battle.
"Want to Be a Good Gunowner?...
Want to Keep Your Freedom?
The LEAST you can do is the following:"1. Join the NRA. Also join other strong pro-gun organizations such as Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) P.O. Box 270143, Hartford, WI 53027, Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms/Second Amendment Foundation, 12500 N.E. Tenth Place, Bellevue, WA 98005 [contributions to the foundation are tax-deductible], and Gun Owners of America, 8001 Forbes Place - Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 (703/321-8585). JPFO has an outstanding record for aggressively defending our firearms freedoms - be sure to get a copies of "Gun Control Kills Kid's" for distribution - it's the best educational comic on the 2nd Amendment available ($20 gets 50 copies - postpaid!) To join any of the above, just send a check for $20 and you can be a part of the effort..."
-- "Fred", Rifleman and organizer of Appleseed Shoots
According to Fred, I'm in good company. While I don't know him personally, he has my respect.
BTW, your comment on what is "irrelevant" is a classic 'tell'.
seemoAR asked:
"So, he wouldn't have been able to buy guns and ammo legally. Do you really think that would have stopped him?.
That's right, he wouldn't be able to buy any guns through commercial channels.
That's the point of including all the records. The rest is irrelevant.
44 by spunkets
Gotta love the concept that 'records are what's relevant'.. Oops..
Gun control will only work against honest citizens. Criminals by definition break the law. I guess all the gun control laws keep some people happy. They will not reduce crime.
Already, in California no one can buy any guns except "through commercial channels."
That's the real point of including all the records.
I think it's a little over the top to blame the NRA for the entire shift in political culture that we've seen since the 60's. You can say they failed to stop it, but I think it's a bit much to say that they are responsible for causing it. (but maybe I read you wrong)
I think the NRA is a different organization now than it was in the 60's. and like I said, I believe there is a place for a "no-compromise" view, but I don't think the GOA effectively delivers it. They spend too much time beating on their friends and family.
I remember when guns were sold by Sears and Roebuck. I put a shot gun on my bicycle and rode through town when I went hunting. I carried a 22 rifle in a school play when I was in junior high. I guess those guns were less lethal or were better trained than the ones we have now.
"Well at least you're being polite about it," --
" their exaggeration -- [the GOA's] -- allows our enemies to depict us as a bunch of lying idiots."
Gotta love all that politeness.
I posted them and you failed to address the specifics. Also, they are not gun control databases. The relevant database entries this paritcular law is concerned with are records of folks adjudicated to be a danger to themselves, or others, due to mental defect. I see no legitimate reason to allow paranoid schiz patients to possess dangerous items, such as guns.
"Seems to me that the GOA has a valid concern about the lying idiots in the gun control movement."
They haven't given any.
" BTW, your comment on what is "irrelevant" is a classic 'tell'. ... Gotta love the concept that 'records are what's relevant'.. Oops..
The law addressess specifics and has a specific purpose, all else is irrelevant.
None.
Not true. GOA fund-raising hype.
How can any bill sponsored (or co sponsored and backed) by the likes of McCarthy and Schumer be any good for us?
Why would the NRA join with the anti gunners on this bill?
Besides, they will still call us nuts no matter what we do so why give them even an inch?
WOW!
What flavor is the NRA koolaid today?
You lost me when you said that the law “merely” changed from may to must.
Is that all?
If the GOA is guilty of overstatement, the NRA is just as guilty of understating the threat and that is more dangerous.
Darn, I finally got an honest answer. So let’s penalize all the honest law abiding citizens of this Nation so the criminals can’t buy guns and ammo through commercial channels they don’t even use. People who are said to have mental problems can also obtain weapons.
Yes, that's all this law amounts to, besides implementation funding, and the requirement that an effective remedy be made available for those whose mental defect disappears for whatever reason.
"the NRA is just as guilty of understating the threat and that is more dangerous."
What is, is. This law is specific and limited. There are no threats that can arise under this law, other than nebulous irrational possibilities.
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.