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).
I fail to see how an instant background check is a penalty. BTW, all my answers are honest.
"People who are said to have mental problems can also obtain weapons."
Not in the commercial market, and that's the point of this law. They'll have to steal, purchase stolen, or find a negligent person that's willing to sell to a psychopath.
So, who will this law really hurt?. Will it hurt the criminal?.
How can you rationally ignore the history of the gun grabbers?
Criminals and insane people will not be deterred by this law, but honest, law abiding citizens could be denied their rights on the basis of a so called evaluation.
Even if the law ‘merely’ sets that standard high, a subsequent bill can ‘merely’ change that to a much lower one.
Forget the NRA, why are trusting the snakes that are pushing this bill?
Criminals are already covered. This law effects those adjudicated a danger to themselves, or others by reason of mental defect. Fundamentally, it means proven psychopaths will not be able buy guns as if they were competent, responsible citizens.
I ignore nothing in general. There is simply no valid complaint that can be raised in opposition to this law.
"Criminals and insane people will not be deterred by this law"
Deterance is not a component of this law. Prevention of proven psychopaths from engaging in the legal gun market is.
"but honest, law abiding citizens could be denied their rights on the basis of a so called evaluation."
BS. This law doesn't address evaluations whatsoever. In order for an evaluation to be made, as is relevant here, the person generally commits a crime, folks note that the person is wacked and the judge forces an evaluation by med pros. Then the judge acts on the results of the evaluation by med pros.
So, if someone can't refrain themselves from committing crimes and otherwise acting like a psychopath, then they should not be treated with the respect that law abiding, responsible citizens enjoy. Keep in mind also, that this law provides for a remedy if they clean up their act.
"a subsequent bill can ‘merely’ change that to a much lower one."
No. Such legal determinations can not be addressed in this, or any similar gun related bill. They must apply to the general population, regardless of any particulars and would have much wider consequences.
"Forget the NRA, why are trusting the snakes that are pushing this bill?"
The bill stands on it's own. It is what I said, and I see no logical reason to go negligent and allow proven paychopaths to obtain a clean background check and purchase guns as a competant, responsible citizen can.
So, you said proven psychopaths will not be able to to buy guns. Why can’t they?. Oh, I forgot, they can’t because that would be illegal and we all know they wouldn’t break any laws.
They won't be able to engage in the legal market, because their background check will be stamped denied.
"Oh, I forgot, they can’t because that would be illegal and we all know they wouldn’t break any laws."
Ridiculous.
Who is talking about the legal market?. They won’t even try that route. Do illegal gun dealers require a stamp of approval?.
I posted them and you failed to address the specifics.
I saw rationalizations, not specifics worthy of rebuttal.
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.
And where in the 2nd is the power to prohibit arms to folks "adjudicated"? -- You've made up that 'power', -- it's an infringement.
I see no legitimate reason to allow paranoid schiz patients to possess dangerous items, such as guns.
I see no legitimate reason to allow doctors/judges to decide who is a "paranoid schiz", thereby giving them the power to prohibit possession of so-called "dangerous items", such as guns.
BTW, your comment on what is "irrelevant" and "dangerous" 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 "[dangerous]" 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 on dangerous items are what's relevant'.. Oops..
The law addressess specifics and has a specific purpose, all else is irrelevant.
Thank you for parroting the gun grabbers line.
You are either incredibly naive to believe that crap or you are a tool of the gun grabbers.
You are trusting gun grabbers to do the right thing. That is insane.
If the people that you suggest are so dangerous, they should be locked up and not left to roam the streets because they do not need a gun to do their damage. However, it the meantime, I guarantee you that the law will be misused and misapplied and harmless law abiding citizens will be adversely affected.
Please tell me that you just left off a sarcasm tag to spur discussion. You can’t be this naive.
People won't be able to purchase weapons except in the commercial market, -- that's the point of these laws.
They'll have to steal, purchase stolen, or find a negligent person that's willing to sell to a psychopath.
61 by spunkets
There you have it folks, defacto gun control, 'California style', where its a crime to buy or sell a gun except through a licensed dealer.
Waiting in the wings is making it a 'crime' to buy or sell ammo except through a licensed dealer. - Total control at the "stroke of a pen".
A more laws, bigger infringement on liberty bump...
Only if htis law passes and closes that route, else they'll use it like Cho did.
"Do illegal gun dealers require a stamp of approval?. "
Yes, cash. Otherwise they could care less about being criminally negligent, selling stolen property to psychopaths, ect...
I deal in reality. One of the symptoms of insanity is a failure to grasp reality, which GOA frequently demonstrates.
"If the people that you suggest are so dangerous, they should be locked up and not left to roam the streets because they do not need a gun to do their damage."
Could be that some will be locked up for that very reason. Some certainly are. In general though, they don't need to be locked up, but it would be grossly negligent to sell them a gun. That's a simple concept. Try to grasp and understand it.
"However, it the meantime, I guarantee you that the law will be misused and misapplied and harmless law abiding citizens will be adversely affected."
Your guarantee is worthless, because it's grounded in ignorance and fantasy.
The utterly insufferable arrogance of power, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition.
-- Nothing can be done about it. - Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'the law' to others.
Ridiculous. All laws are not the same and this one is specific regarding incompetents only. Congress has the right to regulate inteerstate commerce and they've chosen to deny access to this particular commerce to dangerous mental cases. It does not in any way infringe on a competent person's rights at all.
"Waiting in the wings is making it a 'crime' to buy or sell ammo except through a licensed dealer. - Total control at the "stroke of a pen"."
Nebulous hyperbole.
And the true shame of it is that hunting season on these morons is closed. I bet some of them not only believe that the government has their best interests at heart, but also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus...
Yah, forgot to mention the infinitely dense imbeciles that insist gross negligence in the form of allowing psychopaths to possess and purchase guns is justified, because somehow it's their inalienable right to do so.
And the true irony is this quote on his/her about page:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C. S. Lewis
Astounding... but I would guess that he/she’s content with his/her smoke pole and being a member of the NRA, which never met a gun-right it couldn’t compromise away, is plenty enough to ensure his/her credentials as a Second Amendment champion.
Explain how a background check amounts to tyranny.
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.