Posted on 10/16/2007 7:47:27 AM PDT by Joe Brower
When Democrats propose a new “gun law”, it’s never what it seems.
Larry Scott should be believed because.........?
Ok I searched a little on Larry’s political slant on different subjects and long story short Gun Owners trusting Larry is like Chickens trusting Col Sanders.......:o)
http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Scott_Index,00.html
Do you think ex-military airline pilots can’t handle a peashooter like a handgun after they used missile laden aircraft?
[Your logic says since feinswein was for arming the pilots you are immediately for the opposite side.]
Post again when you are thinking clearly enough to post a cognitive response.
Hardly. That is what they would like you to think.
I’d sure like to see all the effort the NRA has put into this “improving” or “strengthening” the Brady Instant Check system, instead be put into repealing it. It’s just as unconstitutional as any other “infringement” on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And every year, Chuckles the Clown (and senior Sinator from New York), will prohibit spending any appropriated funds on the program, just as he does with current "Relief from disability" programs.
There is no 1986 GCA. The 1986 legislation was the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It was a good bill, repealing the more egregious provisions of the '68 GCA (Maybe that's what you meant), such as having to show ID and sign a register when purchasing "handgun" ammunition(including .22 rim fire), and removing the provisions against interstate shipment of ammunition directly to a consumer, It also provided several protections for gun owners, such as the ability to transport firearms from one state where possession of them is legal to another where is also legal, never mind the laws of states or localities in between (with limitations on the conditions of transport).
The one bad feature, and it's truly awful, because it was the first outright *ban* of a whole class of firearms for civilians, was a last minute (literally) addition that many did not even know was in the bill and fewer yet understood. In fact it was so poorly worded it should not have changed anything, but it's being enforced as the author intended, not as the law actually reads.
Even though I'm a member, I've not gotten an email or snail mail asking for money to fight this bill.
OTOH, the NRA, of which I'm also a member, sends a begging letter every couple of weeks, if not more often. Or one selling this or that "NRA Merchandise". I have no problem that, although it's got to be an immense expense compared to what it brings in. The NRA talking about the other groups "fund raising efforts" is definitely the pot calling the kettle black.
Even the Associate Press is calling this "the first major gun control law in more than a decade." ( "Bill on Gun Restrictions Bogged Down", By Laurie Kellman, The Associated Press, September 26, 2007)
Senator Coburn says "The bill does not fund a process by which such individuals can regain their rights.”
BTTT
I was a member of GOA for one year, and I got tons of beg letters from them for years after that. I also got tons of beg letters from NRA until I sent them a letter telling them I was already a life member and that they were wasting money sending me junk mail. I haven’t gotten one since.
As for AP, do you believe anything they say? I don’t.
That one I'm not sure I blame them for. As I said the "machine gun ban" was a last minute floor amendment, and no one really knew what it meant, although they did know the intent of it's author. I suspect the NRA thought, if they knew at all, that because of the poor wording, the ban would be unenforceable. OTOH, I don't recall it being challenge in court either.
Machine guns and NFA weapons in general have been so demonized that virtually no one will challenge the First Federal Gun Gun Control law. Regarding that law, the sponsors wanted to treat handguns the same as Machine Guns. In the late 1930s, Roosevelt's attorney general had asked Congress to require every owner of a rifle, shotgun, revolver or pistol to register his weapon with the bureau of internal revenue. A tax of one dollar would have been payable for every firearm sold. The attorney general stated that this legislation would broaden the scope of the NFA and "would place a potent weapon against criminals in the hands of law-enforcement officers." (See Chi. Daily News, May 4, 1937, at 4.)
It took until the very '94 Brady Act that this very Gun Bill is "improving" before the federal government got in the position to be able to register, each and every firearm sale from a dealer.
If Canckles becomes President, and the 'Rats retain control of Congress, BOHICA, big time.
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.