Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

The McCarthy/Leahy Gun Control Bill of 2007
1 posted on 10/17/2007 7:01:27 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: All

It was called 2PC, 2 physician commitment, when I was in training. Get 2 dishonest docs with an antigun agenda, and you can get screwed.


2 posted on 10/17/2007 7:05:49 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Unintended Consequences Alert: If this bill passes, how many young people who enjoy hunting or just the use of firearms will want to put that in jeopardy by enlisting in the military?

My concern is this law will make it more difficult to sustain the voluntary military that is beneficial to the country. It will also become a factor in the mental calculations when a service member starts to consider re-enlistment.

3 posted on 10/17/2007 7:19:05 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

In before the resident NRA’s apologists come in here and tell us all where this is still “good” legislation...


4 posted on 10/17/2007 7:21:36 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
The McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 has provided veterans a way to have their rights restored for almost twenty years. The procedure for doing so is contained in 18 USC 925(c). The problem is that Congress has refused to fund the department responsible for processing restoration of rights applications since 1992, which - not coincidentally - is the 15 year time period that the NRA refers to in their claim above. So, the problem is Congress' failure to fund the restoration of rights, not the non existence of a procedure to have rights restored.

And who has been the chief architect of this refusal to fund rights restoration? You guessed it - Chuck Schumer.

5 posted on 10/17/2007 7:26:49 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Anyone remember the NRA's opposition to the Lautenberg Abomination (which this legislation would reinforce) in 1996?

Me either.

6 posted on 10/17/2007 7:35:35 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

A thought provoking and well reasoned analysis of this tragic piece of pending legislation. Thanks for sharing it.


7 posted on 10/17/2007 7:47:17 PM PDT by Ron H. (American's are starting to regret not impeaching co-Presidente Jorge Boosh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Bump. There are hazards in public life that we must endure in order to protect our liberties, and in any case, the gun ban laws and regulations already on our books are the primary cause of the hazards we’re currently facing anyway.


8 posted on 10/17/2007 7:48:43 PM PDT by Old 300
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem; Vets_Husband_and_Wife; Brad's Gramma

Thought y’all might want to see this thread.


10 posted on 10/17/2007 8:09:58 PM PDT by LucyJo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem; 2A Patriot; 2nd amendment mama; 4everontheRight; 77Jimmy; A Strict Constructionist; ...
U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) is now publicly telling constituents he is opposed to HR2640, which means steam is gathering against this gun control scheme.

Gotta love Senator DeMint BUMP!!

South Carolina Ping

Add me to the list. / Remove me from the list.

13 posted on 10/17/2007 8:39:59 PM PDT by upchuck (Hildabeaste as Prez... unimaginable, devastating misery! She will redefine "How bad can it get?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

bookmark


14 posted on 10/17/2007 10:38:35 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem; Abram; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allerious; Allosaurs_r_us; ...
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
18 posted on 10/18/2007 5:50:57 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ...
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
19 posted on 10/18/2007 5:54:08 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Any bill with this name on it, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is not good for gun-owners. Her agenda, along with Chuckie is to disarm us. Nothing less.

This is the same incremental undercutting of the 2nd Amendment we have gone through since 1934. As an Endowment member of the NRA, I am vehemently opposed to this, and have written many letters of opposition.

The NRA backing this, is not looking at the unintended consequences or the 2-doctor ruling. It only takes a small group in each state to 'adjucate' any individual who is even on a presciption of Tylenol the purchase of a firearm.

Don't think it won't happen.

20 posted on 10/18/2007 6:00:05 AM PDT by Pistolshot (20 year olds returning from Iraq know more about national securiy than 20 year veterans of Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Is anyone surprised that the NRA is selling us down the river AGAIN?


27 posted on 10/18/2007 7:09:37 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Something that I haven’t seen anyone address is this...

regarding this section of the bill:

“(2) Mental health terms.—The terms ``adjudicated as a mental defective’’, ``committed to a mental institution’’, and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.”

As noted in the comments in the article, the BATFE definition is vague and often changed. What if the BATFE decides to include anyone who requires or has required medicine for oh I don’t know... say ADHD? or other mental stuff that more than 25% of school age kids are getting pumped into their systems right now? God knows the BATFE likes to make up “regulations” that have the force of law more than most people eat meals during the day. What is to stop them from barring anyone who has relied on medicine for any kind of “mental” issue?

This may be a way to prohibit a huge number of people in the future from being able to exercise their rights. And remember, the NRA is pushing for this... WHY?

Mike


39 posted on 10/18/2007 7:59:36 PM PDT by BCR #226 (Abortion is the pagan sacrifice of an innocent virgin child for the sins of the mother and father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Sadly, the NRA’s beautiful Washington Beltway digs are connected to the DC water supply system.

Wayne and the boys really should stick to bottled water while at the office.

GOA is a far stronger Second Amendment supporter.


42 posted on 10/20/2007 9:02:31 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson