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

Skip to comments.

Gun Owners of America Legislative Alert -- Oppose McCarthy Gun Control Bill, H.R. 297
Gun Owners of America ^ | Jan. 23, 2007 | new release

Posted on 01/23/2007 3:08:44 PM PST by girlangler

Gun Owners of America Legislative Alert -- Oppose McCarthy Gun Control Bill, H.R. 297 Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership.

On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last year, but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it than were their predecessors.

This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."

Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and other records.

NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this bill.

For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy.

Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for self-defense.

The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded.

The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the federal government all of these indictment records, updated quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that prosecutors can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this, too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded.

Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill.

This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally "incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system.

Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people, as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that "The problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all children are affected -- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown how these people will be categorized in the future.

The fact that metal health 'experts,' a notoriously anti-gun community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.'

Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised.

Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens.

Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?

In order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment records, library records (we've already seen how these have been deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an illegal.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated "D." These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your Second Amendment rights.

Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). In fact, the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report" entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System Allows Criminals to Get Guns."

This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the House that year, and was only defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH). Since the bill has already been around for several years, look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts.

The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights.

ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you contact your representative immediately. Please take action today and spread the word about H.R. 297! We need all the help we can get.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

---- Pre-written letter to your Representative ---- Dear Representative: Gun Owners of America has told me that anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is trying to expand the Brady Law via H.R. 297. Well, on behalf of those millions of Americans who:

* have had their gun purchases held up by the Brady background check system for no apparent reason; * know of people who have been targets of stalkers or abusive husbands -- and were killed (or simply forced to live in fear) while some bureaucrat in West Virginia fumbled around with their lives; * have tried to buy a gun when the NICS system was shut down completely -- thereby blocking gun purchases nationally; * are just curious why the Brady Instant Check -- which was billed as "the gun control bill that would stop future calls for gun control" -- almost immediately became a stepping stone for gun control bills dealing with gun show background checks, private sale background checks, and more personal information for the NICS registration system; * are wondering why the FBI brags about the number of sales blocked by the Brady check, but can produce no data showing that the Instant check system has any relation to crime reduction; * are struck by the fact that the anti-gun Clinton administration tried to use the system -- without further legislation -- to impose onerous fees and to retain records forever; and * are wondering why the folks responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge should be put in charge of determining whether or not I can have a gun -- I would ask you to oppose H.R. 297, the anti-gun legislation sponsored by liberal Carolyn McCarthy. Thank you.

Sincerely,

**************************** Defend The 2nd Amendment Through Creative Giving...

As we confront the challenges of the future, we know that the generosity of those who assist us will make all the difference in our success. That's why GOA seeks your long-term support.

Please call 703-321-8585 during regular business hours or e-mail goamail@gunowners.org to request information on how to keep control of your assets and make a gift at the same time through:

* a bequest * a retirement plan * a will, living trust, or insurance policy Requests for information are confidential and do not represent an obligation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; brady; expansion; guns; hunting; legislation; nra
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

1 posted on 01/23/2007 3:08:47 PM PST by girlangler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; proud_yank; Diana in Wisconsin; SJackson; george76

Please ping your gun rights lists.


2 posted on 01/23/2007 3:10:09 PM PST by girlangler (Fish Fear Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: girlangler

Don't forget to keyword all gun-related threads to "BANGLIST". Thanks for the head-up on this.


3 posted on 01/23/2007 3:17:27 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: girlangler; 2nd amendment mama; Ladysmith; Brad's Gramma; basil; RightWhale
The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the Second Amendment ...
4 posted on 01/23/2007 3:37:18 PM PST by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: girlangler
I thought the Rudy-ophiles told us we'd never have to worry about gun issues ever again, and were fools to think it would ever matter in a candidate anymore? Didn't they tell us that everyone knows it's a losing issue, so nobody would ever dare bring up gun control measures again?
5 posted on 01/23/2007 4:03:31 PM PST by TitansAFC (Pacifism is not peace; pacifists are not peacemakers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
But, but, but the Dem's love guns and Jesus, don't they????
6 posted on 01/23/2007 4:12:50 PM PST by sachem longrifle (proud member of the fond Du lac band of the Ojibwa people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx

Fire the NRA PING LIST ROUND


7 posted on 01/23/2007 4:49:31 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ 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!
8 posted on 01/23/2007 5:38:09 PM PST by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Good point.


9 posted on 01/23/2007 5:42:09 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: girlangler
"The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded."

Ditto.

$1B, that's absolutely a disgusting waste.

10 posted on 01/23/2007 5:48:15 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Patriots, get ready. When the time comes, what are you going to do? Turn 'em in, or uphold the American Spirit? Figure it out now, 'cause when it happens, there won't be time to think about it.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

11 posted on 01/23/2007 6:36:45 PM PST by wku man (Claire Wolfe's "awkward time" is quickly coming to an end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

harpseal passed years ago Joe...

I have a few of his writings archived at my place for memories. Follow my tag line and do a Keyword Search for harpseal.


12 posted on 01/23/2007 6:50:54 PM PST by sit-rep ( http://trulineint.com/latestposts.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: girlangler
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress.

She gives McCarthyism a bad name.

13 posted on 01/24/2007 2:34:29 AM PST by Pontiac (Patriotism is the natural consequence of having a free mind in a free society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
Texas Cowboy passed too. I caught the discrepancy in the ping list long ago. Joe has the names as a simple tribute to fallen comrades...After that come the folks who've fallen in another way by having been banned from the site. Banned or deceased they're still our friends.
14 posted on 01/24/2007 6:54:45 AM PST by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: girlangler
I was a service member during a period of restless "peace" which we termed the Cold War. Most of the vets I know from that period won't pass the scrutiny of the VA shrinks as being competent to own a gun....'cause those docs are essentially CIVILIANS who are antigun to start with! Imagine how they'll react to returning combat veterans? How about the poor guys from my era who simply battle depression and try to get some help? Being depressed is no guarantee you're going to go postal and shoot up the streets! Far from it. Even a clinical deep depression doesn't reach this standard. Bi Polar or schizo I could see...maybe. But I'm of the opinion that it takes a COURT adjudicating an issue before it should have a lasting impact on a man's life. Imagine the freezing effect this will have on ALL vets who might like to get some help but now, won't. JUST DAMN.
15 posted on 01/24/2007 7:01:11 AM PST by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally.

Of course Julie Annie and his sanctuary city are not held accoutable even under current standards. The illegals will result in laws being passed that affect all legal citizens. Pretty slick way of justifying any type of BS like this.

16 posted on 01/24/2007 7:10:16 AM PST by beltfed308 (Democrats :Tough on Taxpayers, Soft on Terrorism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wku man

I already know. I don't need an excuse at this point.


17 posted on 01/24/2007 7:36:36 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: girlangler

Bump.


18 posted on 01/24/2007 7:38:44 AM PST by stevio (God, Guns, and Guts made America. A politician against any of the 3 doesn't get my vote. (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: girlangler
The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the Second Amendment

Not only the Second, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and the Ninth are blown away with this bill as well.

FOR REFERENCE in this thread:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

19 posted on 01/24/2007 8:01:14 AM PST by Centurion2000 (If you're not being shot at, it's not a high stress job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

Where's Travis McGee? He should read this too.


20 posted on 01/24/2007 8:02:57 AM PST by Centurion2000 (If you're not being shot at, it's not a high stress job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

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.

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