Posted on 06/10/2007 7:39:59 AM PDT by holymoly
The gun lobby wrests some concessions as it agrees to back stronger background checks.
WASHINGTON - Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.
The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System, and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.
Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.
To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks. Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83, 000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records.
The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicative names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.
"The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a ... system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement, " said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., a former NRA board member, who led the talks.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., had been pushing similar legislation for years. But her reputation as a staunch opponent of the gun lobby - she came to Congress to promote gun control after her husband was gunned down in a massacre on the Long Island Rail Road - ruined any chance of a deal with the NRA.
Convenient deal
By contrast, this agreement is a marriage of convenience for both sides. Democratic leaders are eager to show that they can respond legislatively to the Virginia Tech rampage, a feat that GOP leaders would not muster after the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Meanwhile, the NRA was motivated to show it would not stand in the way of a bill that would not harm law-abiding gun buyers. Even so, it drove a hard bargain to quiet its smaller but more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America.
Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said Saturday that the organization will strongly support the legislation as written. "We've been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's not only good policy, it's good politics, " he said. But Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support.
In effect, you're betting your right to own and carry a weapon on that big 'IF'.
We can't ~allow~ this database type of infringement, period. - Such a power is, and always will be abused.
Bet on that.
And NRA staunchly defends Mitt Romney for the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban- I mean, firearms reform bill that reduced the size of the carry permit to one that will fit your wallet.
Of course, once the legislation is passed and the courts and BATFE come up with “reasonable regulations” under which the opportunity to clear your name will be turned into legal process, NRA will be working toward their next compromise and will defend the last one.
The NRA compromises again?
A lot of folks were kept in the database for merely having harsh words for an ex-wife. Think that's right? The old rules had a lot of wiggle room. This should tighten things a bit. I wish the NRA had fought for national reciprocity, too. But that would have queered the deal, I'll bet. As far as I'm concerned this kind of legislation should slow down the overall juggernaut agenda of the extremeists until we can get a more solid progun majority and President into place.
Yes I'm suspicious of any deal the RATs agree to that would tend to offer us anything as a "concession." So we'll trust for now....trust but verify. If they try to add more of their wish list, it'll be easy to scream "breach of trust" and fight it. Then it makes them devote more and more resources in an election year which raises the issue even higher into the public eye. West-by-God-Virginia went Republican for the first time in decades during the 2000 election on JUST this issue! That cost Gore the White House.
The 1934, and 1968 gun control acts were also supported by the NRA.
Well frickin HECK!!
All of both houses of Congress fit that description....
Which goes right back to the FACT that once Hinkley Psycho finds out they can't buy a gun legally they will just find one illegally. It's beyond laughable that anyone would think a law will stop a criminal or a psycho from obtaining a weapon.
A lot of people are going to be 'railroaded' into these government databases..A lot of people already are being railroaded into these databases.
Like I said, if in the process of adding provisions for mental health background checks, we can establish due process protections for not only those who are hit by mental health checks, but for all the rest, too, I think it's a good deal.
It depends very much upon the specific technical details of the bill. But there are folks at the NRA who understand this stuff as well as anyone in the world.
Consider Thomas Lamar Bean - a gun dealer who got hit with a federal felony conviction because an employee put a box of ammo in his car after a gun show, and he crossed into Mexico without realizing its presence. He's no threat to anyone, but he's stuck with a lifetime firearms disability. Federal law establishes a process by which such a disability can be removed, but Congress has blocked it.
If, as a part of this compromise, this process was made active again, would it change your mind about the value of the compromise?
This could be, depending upon the details, a good bill.
If you're not particular about who gets killed, driving a car into a street fair at 70 MPH is pretty effective too. That just happened in the Washington D.C. area within the last couple weeks. Witnesses on the scene recognized the driver and observed that she appeared to be sucking on a crack pipe as she drove into the crowd. The death toll was close to 13 people.
California has so many anti-gun laws that you can become a felon without even trying. Just buy a handgun magazine and appropriate ammo for the mag. Put just 1 round into the magazine and step onto a public sidewalk or street. Bingo! You are now a felon. The magazine is part of a gun, thus loading it makes puts you in possession of a "loaded gun". If you possess a loaded gun on a public street and you don't have that gun registered to you on a Form 4473, you are have committed a felony under California law.
I have a nice collection of guns...all relocated to my home in Idaho. I'm finished with California.
We need to understand these people, control their attitudes, and divvy out a single shot long barrel pistol to them so we can help them to control their destructive mindsets.
It's like methadone treatments, pay for their destructive attitudes and ease them off of their addiction. This way fewer people are at risk, because their mindful promotion of death and mayhem would be contained then.
Of course as to not make them feel so alone with their personal issues, restrict the rest of the public at the same time so they feel that they are a part of society.
My SUV will be taken away when I cold hands are pried from the steering wheel.
NOT !!!
Where was the NRA everytime new more restictive gun laws were passed in the past? They we either supporting them or nowhere to be found.
But it never rains in California.
Are you sure you have made the right decision? /s
I support true grassroots/no compromise organizations like Second Amendment Sisters, Second Amendment Foundation, JPFO and others!
I recall 1994 rather vividly - the NRA "worked with" legislators on that one as well. It was couched as "common-sense" gun control, "gun control we can live with." The next thing you know the kiddies in the Clinton war room decided to get partisan with it and slide the knife into the back by presenting it as their royal personages having "stood up to the NRA." And what do you know if BJ Billy didn't end up stating "I'm going to stretch this just as far as I can." Which he did.
The Democrats have NO credibility on this issue, and there is no more reason to trust them on it once they've gotten their way than there is to trust a rattlesnake not to bite. The members of the NRA - specifically the ILA within it - are so enamored of their Beltway sinecures that they are willing to compromise on anything just to be considered one of the boys. They should know better. They DO know better. I'm one Life member who's going to be telling them so.
ping!
So how would this gun deal stop the mad man from killing 30 people? A question no one will ask and no one will answer either.
Here is a hint ... if the guy was sane enough to shoot 30 people, don’t you think he was sane enough to steal a gun?
Democrats made simple, ... raise taxes, fund socialism and gun control, it’s all they ever know. Feel good crap.
So how are we doing on eliminating gun free killing zones? Teaching self defense?
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.