New Gun Grab In The Works, Already Passed the House HR 4757

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org

The House has passed H.R. 4757, the so-called "Our Lady of Peace Act." Its chief sponsor is the rabidly anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York.

Not surprisingly, one of the other rabid anti-gunners from New York, Senator Chuck Shumer (D), has sponsored the companion bill in the Senate (S. 2826).

The bill would require states to turn over vast numbers of sometimes-personal records (on potentially all Americans) to the FBI for use in connection with the Instantcheck. These records would include any state record relevant to the question of whether a person is prohibited from owning a gun.

This starts with a large volume of mental health records, but the FBI could also require that a state forward ALL of its employment and tax records in order to identify persons who are illegal aliens. It could require that states forward information concerning drug diversion programs and arrests that do not lead to prosecution, in order to determine whether a person was "an unlawful user of... any controlled substance...."

The bill would also help FBI officials to effectively stop millions of additional Americans from purchasing a firearm, because they were guilty in the past of committing slight misdemeanors. You might remember the Lautenberg Gun Ban which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996? Because of this ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, even yelling at a family member have discovered that they can no longer own a firearm for self-defense.

But the anti-gun nuts in Congress are upset because many of the states' criminal records are incomplete. As a result, the FBI does not access all of these records when screening the background of someone who purchases a firearm from a gun dealer. The McCarthy-Schumer bill would change all that and keep millions of decent, peaceful citizens from owning a firearm because of one slight offense committed in their past.

The bill also reaches for a gun owning prohibition on nearly 3 million more Americans who have spent time in mental health facilities. This group has no more involvement in violent crime than does the rest of the population. But even assuming that those with (often minor and treatable) mental health histories are "bad" guys, this bill is NOT about keeping bad guys from getting guns. Bad guys will ALWAYS be able to get guns, no matter how many restrictions there are.

This bill is all about control. Schumer and McCarthy want to keep pushing their agenda forward, making it impossible for more and more Americans to legally own guns! But if it is OK to ban gun ownership for certain people who have engaged in a shouting match with another family member, or who have stayed overnight in a hospital for emotional observation or who have been written a prescription for depression, then who will be next on the McCarthy-Schumer hit list? People who drink an occasional beer? People who take "mind altering" cold medicines -- Nyquil, TheraFlu, etc.?

H.R. 4757 and S. 2826 are major, anti-self defense bills that will only make the country safer for criminals while opening the door to invading the privacy of all Americans.

A near-total gun ban on the island of Great Britain has resulted in England suffering from the highest violent crime rate of any industrialized country. Why would a less oppressive form of gun control work when an outright ban has failed to keep guns out of the wrong hands?

Please contact your Senators and demand that this bill be stopped. A pre-written message is provided below. To identify your Senators, as well as to send the message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website.

I am shocked that the Senate has before it a bill (S. 2826) that would prohibit millions of Americans from owning a gun for self-defense. Those who would be banned present no greater risk of committing violent crimes than does the rest of the population. Are all the rest of us next?

Please vote against this monstrosity (also known as the Our Lady of Peace bill) if it comes to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Gun Owners of America will be using this vote for their rating of Congress.

I would like to hear from you about whether you support this massive increase in gun control.

Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.

To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.

Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.

"Government should be the last place you go seeking solutions."

You say in 109, "Anyone who gives an insane person a weapon should be charged with a crime"? That's making the seller responsible for knowing the mental health and history of the purchaser, just as 922(g) does. You have already gone seeking a solution in government, to a problem you now say doesn't exist.

The NICS is supposed to balance that responsiblity, which the seller didn't ask for but you say should be his, with a tool that will reduce the impact of that "unfunded mandate" on the seller's business. This law is an attempt to make the NICS actually accomplish the goal you desire. Would you rather that the seller is just going through the motions to satisfy an empty bureaucratic request, wasting both his and the taxpayer's money?

Your first paragraph is correct after the first sentence and the second is debatable (I tend to agree), but they have no bearing on the discussion we've been having, which was begun by your comment in 109.

Oh, but we can roll it back overnight. We need people with integrity like Ron Paul who will vote consistently against big government.

That statement is just as silly as your contention that all candidates on the ballot have an equal chance, as if voting were done by a random number generation program, or by rolling 20 sided dice.

Your statement about Ron Paul proves my point. Who is he? I know nothing about him. If I barely know the name, how is someone who only gets their news from Peter Jennings to decide to vote for him? Sadly, those are the types that make up the majority of our population. You are trying to run a lame colt with an over-weight rider in the KY Derby; I won't bet on that horse!

If you had the sense to bore from within, and at least help to prevent further decay of our rights we'd at least hold the line against the Socialists. For now that is the best we can hope for. The Universities, public schools, and the press are all in the Socialist camp - they took over our infrastructure slowly and carefully. Yet, you think the LP can get total power and change everything overnight? How? Did they find a magic wand? Do you remember the budget fight of '95, and how Newt and the Republicans were tared and feathered in the press - with their view never being represented? Guess what? They were trying to reduce the size and scope of the Feds. Remember "Block Grants" for school lunches? What was the constant press line? Wasn't it starving children? When someone proposes increasing a department by less then twice the rate of inflation, it is called a drastic cut, and we'll be kicking old people out on the streets. Will your LP magic wand nuter the press? Will it make them report both sides of an issue fairly? I think not!

I'd be happy with a static fed budget; a freeze on spending. One of the things you fail to take into account in your model is inflation. Holding to current levels is a cut. I'd love more than that, I'd love to see many fedral programs eleminated, others drastically scaled back. Heck; were I to live in a political fantisy world like you do I'd be demanding a complete and total return to the Constitution, as written by the founders and legally ammended. However, I have enough understanding of reality to know that it won't happen in my lifetime, much less overnight (unless there is a revolution).

The reason I don't respond to all your points is that I can only deal with so much illogic at a time. Virtually all your points come from a firm foundation in fantisy. Fantisy is fine to a point. I often fantisize about winning the lottery, but I recognize that it is a fantisy as I know the odds are against me. You think all odds are even - it's not that simple, either in gambling or in politics. In order to win at either you need to give yourself the best odds possible. In politics, that means using an established party for your own ends (ie. bore from within). Let's say 7% of the population is Libertarian, if they offered to join the Republican party, don't you think that the Republicans would welcome them? Oh, wait, sorry; I forgot who I was talking to!

I sincerely hope that you are not representitive of the LP, since I'd love to see them get some representation and power. I think that we have a historic chance to eliminate the D/S party from power in the next 8 years. However continued use of the term "Republicrats" won't help elimiate the Socialists.

As I stated, you are living in a fantisy world where you don't let reality penetrate. This saddens me as I know you are not stupid. If you'd just let a bit of reality penetrate into your fantisy world you might be worth talking to.

Oh, btw, since it seems you are pro gun, but don't belong to the NRA because they have some grounding in the reality of politics, maybe you should look into JPPFO. Oh, sorry again; I forgot. Even though JPPFO is similar to the LP in that they have no chance of attaining real power, and are somewhat idealistic; you'd probably find one or two things in their platform that don't fit into your fantisy world.

MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

You say in 109, "Anyone who gives an insane person a weapon should be charged with a crime"? That's making the seller responsible for knowing the mental health and history of the purchaser...

It is a crime to knowingly give an insane person a gun or any other kind of weapon. No one can be 100% certain that any given person is not sane.

You have already gone seeking a solution in government, to a problem you now say doesn't exist.

I don't seek government solutions because government solves nothing. Insane people getting guns is not a problem requiring a remedy. We don't need Instacheck to esure that insane people don't get guns, or don't buy sharp kitchen utensils at Walmart, or power tools at Home Depot.

This is a government program going in search of a problem.

This law is an attempt to make the NICS actually accomplish the goal you desire.

If there's been a rash of insane people acquiring guns then the problem is insane people walking freely about, not the accessibility of guns.

There are so many reasons to oppose this government program. The federal government has no business doing this to begin with. It's a waste of taxpayers' money. It will undoutedly be used for purposes other than the one it's intended for. It will invariably become more expensive and intrusive.

What we need is the repeal of gun-control and the abolition of the War on Drugs, not another government program or government database.

Election results are not dictated by lotteries, random number pickers, or dice rolling. They are determined by conscientious decisions and direct action by voters. Voters determine who the winner is. Your comparison of horse races to elections is ridiculous. No matter how many people at the race track place bets on horses they will not have influenced the outcome of the race in any way. Voting directly affects the outcome of elections. If picking the winner is the reason you vote then you're wasting your time. I vote because I want to reduce government.

I'm not suprised that you don't know who Ron Paul is. Anyone who is genuinely interested in smaller government would make an effort to find out which candidates are really trying to reduce government so they could support that person.

The notion that Republicans are holding back the tide of socialism is laughable. No Republican president has presided over a decrease in federal spending since the 1920's. Republicans have been promising to abolish the Dept. of Education and NEA for 20 years but have repeatedly increased funding for it. Republicans held a majority of seats in Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Since Reagan became president the federal budget has grown from $600 billion to $2.1 trillion and the federal government has spent $30 trillion. The national debt is $6 trillion (officially, although I suspect the real amount is higher).

George W. Bush has yet to veto any legislation since taking office and with his own party in control of Congress it's unlikely he'll do so. According to economist Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth, social welfare programs under Bush have grown by $96 billion in just two years, versus $51 billion under six years of Clinton. Republicans have been on a spending spree since Bush took office. They've wasted hundreds of billions on pork. You can see some of it on this list.

I watched the debates between Bush and Gore. When Gore proposed a taxpayer funded prescription drug program Bush should've pointed out that government has no place paying for prescription drugs with taxpayers' money. But, instead he proposed a government program of his own. On national TV Bush said that no American should pay more than a third of his income to the federal government (but up to and including a third is ok). Bush and Ashcroft have said they support an individual's right to keep and bear arms while supporting stricter enforcement of existing gun-control (but not the repeal of any gun-control).

You said you'd like to see federal programs eliminated and others scaled back but you don't expect that to happen in your lifetime. And why should you? You vote for people who expand existing programs and create new ones. Keep it up and you'll meet your expectations.

The federal budget doesn't need to grow to keep up with inflation. Inflation is caused by the Federal Reserve which needs to be abolished. Money is created when the Fed loans money to government or to banks (which loan it to consumers). The money is created on printing machines or via electronic bookkeeping entries. When there's more money in proportion to the available goods and services the purchasing power of the dollar declines and the costs of goods and services rise to compensate. The Constitution states that our money must be Gold or Silver. Paper money is not Constitutional.

Anyone who is serious about gun-rights would be wise to cancel their membership and never send any money to the NRA. The NRA is a group of sellouts and compromisers. The NRA supports stricter enforcement of gun-control and has even endorsed some gun-control legislation. I suggest joining Gun Owners of America or JPFO instead. They don't compromise.

The question you need to ask yourself is, "Do you want smaller government?" If the answer to that question is 'yes' then the first thing you must do is to stop supporting the people who are making government bigger. You will never get smaller government any other way.

Alan, you continue to prove that you live in a fantisy world where neither logic or reality are allowed to penetrate. In the REAL WORLD, election results are determined by votes. However, your contention that "as long as a candidate is on 100% of the ballots he has an equal chance" will ONLY work if elections are on a random number generation program, or a throw of the dice.

In the real world, campaign skills, financing, and name recognition often determine the results of an election. A candidate running on the LP ticket is hamstrung by all these factors. This is why LP candidates loose. However, in loosing, they tend to draw conservative votes away from the GOP candidate. This often puts a Socialist in office.

You say you want smaller government, yet your actions help to grow government by putting Socialist in office who will ignore the Constitution. Who will place activist judges on the bench. Who will further restrict gun ownership and the right to self defence.

Al, you really need to get a grip on reality. Your vote tends to set your agenda back. Perhaps you should just say home next election? It would be a step in the right direction since you don't seem to want to take responsibility for your seeming desire to see Socialists in office. The sad thing is that you don't have the grasp on reality to see that there is a difference between a candidate that wants to hold government growth and one that wants to have government intrude on every aspect of everyone's life.

MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

I'm not understanding how you reconcile your various statements. Either you can make a crime of selling the insane a firearm or you can repeal all gun laws. I don't know how you can have it both ways.

Making it a crime to knowingly give an insane person a weapon isn't gun-control. It's common sense. It's as much a crime to knowingly give an insane person a gun as it is to give an insane person a nailgun. But, we don't need Instacheck at gun stores any more than we need it at Home Depot. We do not need a system of any kind to check the mental status of consumers. It is simply not a problem that requires intervention.

If there are insane people walking freely about then they need to be taken somewhere where they pose no threat to themselves or others. But, we don't need more gun-control.

The proposal being discussed on this thread is intended to make government bigger, to further intrude government into places where it doesn't need to intrude, and to give politicians another political football to kick around and beat each other over the head with.

We need to repeal gun-control for several reasons. Gun-control interferes with the ability of people to defend themselves. The process of obtaining a gun is so burdensome that some people don't bother buying a gun. Others won't buy a gun because they're afraid of getting on a list. As we've seen recently the BATF routinely forces gun shop owners to hand over sales records.

Criminals don't obey gun-control by nature. Gun-control merely disarms law-abiding citizens to the disadvantage of criminals who don't obey gun-control anyway.

Gun-control makes criminals out of people who aren't criminals. A legislature can turn hundreds of thousands of people instantly into felons simply because they own a certain kind of gun. California banned the SKS rifle several years ago. The people who registered their rifles received notices in the mail that they had until a certain date to relinquish their rifles or face criminal prosecution. Sometimes people are prosecuted for defending themselves because they were carring a gun when they weren't supposed to. I've read stories in the newspaper about people who were fined and had their gun confiscated because they brandished it when their life was threatened.

We don't need any more gun-control. We don't need stricter enforcement of existing gun-control. Gun-control should be repealed and the state needs to stop harrassing people for owning guns.

You need to remove this lie from your website:

Let’s keep in mind that Libertarians and Republicans are generally going in the same direction....both generally want a smaller federal government that is less intrusive.

...they [Libertarians] tend to draw conservative votes away from the GOP candidate.

People are getting sick of hearing the same lies from the GOP year after year about how they support smaller government. It's BS

Interestingly, Congressman Ron Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with losing conservative voters. He kicked his opponents ass by a 2 to 1 margin. Other Republicans should take a lesson. The difference between Ron Paul and other Republicans is Ron Paul has integrity.

This often puts a Socialist in office.

There are none more blind than those who refuse to see.

You say you want smaller government, yet your actions help to grow government by putting Socialist in office who will ignore the Constitution.

Hilarious.

Your vote tends to set your agenda back. Perhaps you should just say home next election? It would be a step in the right direction since you don't seem to want to take responsibility for your seeming desire to see Socialists in office. The sad thing is that you don't have the grasp on reality to see that there is a difference between a candidate that wants to hold government growth and one that wants to have government intrude on every aspect of everyone's life.

I'm going to save this for posterity.

There's obviously no reason to continue this conversation with you.

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.