Posted on 06/14/2007 7:43:58 AM PDT by looscnnn
While the entire nation was focused on the immigration bill the past couple of weeks, the gremlins on Capitol Hill were finalizing a "compromise" on gun control legislation.
The good news is that your tremendous outpouring of opposition to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's Brady enhancement (HR 297) has sent a strong signal to Capitol Hill that this bill is unacceptable as written. The bad news is that there are some seemingly pro-gun Congressmen who are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did something about Virginia Tech.
So what's going on?
On Saturday, The Washington Post reported [ see http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn ] that both the Democrats and the NRA leadership had reached a "deal" on legislation similar to the McCarthy bill. This "deal" involves a new bill that has been introduced by Rep. McCarthy (HR 2640) -- a bill that has not yet been posted on the Thomas legislative service. While all the legislative particulars are not yet available, one thing is clear: it is, as reported by the Post, a deal with Democrats. And it involves legislation introduced by the most anti-gun member of the House, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).
The Post says that, under the new language, the federal government would pay (that is, spend taxpayers' money) to help the states send more names of individual Americans to the FBI for inclusion in the background check system. If a state fails to do this, then the feds could cut various law enforcement grants to that state. In essence, this is a restatement of what the original McCarthy bill does. The states will be bribed (again, with your money) to send more names, many of them innocent gun owners, to the FBI in West Virginia -- and perhaps lots of other personal information on you as well.
Under the terms of this compromise, the Post says, "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."
Oh really? The Brady law already contains a procedure for cleaning up records. But it hasn't worked for the 83,000 veterans that are currently prohibited from buying guns. Gun Owners of America is aware of many people who have tried to invoke this procedure in the Brady Law, only to get the run around -- and a form letter -- from the FBI. The simple truth is that the FBI and the BATFE think the 83,000 veterans, and many other law-abiding Americans, should be in the NICS system.
After all, that's what federal regulations decree. Unless these regs are changed, Congress can create as many redundant procedures for cleaning up these records as it wants, but the bottom line is, there is nothing that will force the FBI to scrub gun owners' name from the NICS system.
Not only that, there is a Schumer amendment in federal law which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.
Moreover, will gun owners who are currently being denied the ability to purchase firearms -- such as the military veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress -- be recompensed in any way for their efforts to "clean their records"? They will, no doubt, have to spend thousands of dollars going to a shrink for a positive recommendation, for hiring lawyers to take their case to court, etc.
And this is not to mention the fact that this procedure turns our whole legal system on its head. Americans are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. But these brave souls, who risked their lives defending our country, were denied the right to bear arms because of a mental illness "loophole" in the law. Their names were added to the prohibited purchasers' list in West Virginia without any due process, without any trial by jury... no, their names were just added by executive fiat. They were unilaterally, and unconstitutionally, added into the NICS system by the Clinton administration. And now the burden of proof is ON THEM to prove their innocence. Isn't that backwards?
One wonders if these military veterans will be any more successful in getting back their gun rights than the gun owners in New Orleans who tried to get back their firearms which were confiscated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. (Gun owners in the Big Easy have found it very difficult to prove their case and get their guns back, even though the courts have ruled that the police acted improperly in confiscating their firearms.) But isn't that the problem when honest people are thrust into the position of PROVING their innocence to the government, rather than vice-versa.
The fact is, current federal law -- combined with BATFE's interpretations of that law -- will make it very unlikely that any court will restore the Second Amendment rights of those 83,000 veterans.
Finally, the Post article also says the "federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith amendment into law.
GOA had to overcome opposition from certain pro-gun groups to help Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduce and push his language as an amendment to an appropriations bill. The Smith amendment barred the FBI from taxing gun buyers, something which the Clinton administration was considering doing.
GOA won the vote in the Senate with a veto-proof majority and the Smith amendment has been law ever since. But now we're being told that we need to swallow McCarthy's poison pill so that the Smith amendment -- which is currently law -- will stay on the books. Huh?!
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 HR 2640! 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. You can call your Representative at 202-225-3121, or you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
Ping!
I know they don't like the idea, but the NRA has been practical and effective at enhancing gun rights. And beating on them in IMHO just weakens the credibility of the GOA. At the end of the day it seems to me that it's really about getting their hands on a piece of the PAC cash.
Ron Paul voted against it. No one else did.
No man is safe when the legislature sits...
The will of the people doesn’t seem to matter much these days. Not too many options when that happens.
Another GOA fundraiser. Yaaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnn.
IMHO, beause of the passage of this bill, anyone who sees a psychiatrist, is prescribed a psychotropic drug for any reason, had an eating disorder in adolescence, and on and on, may not be able to pass the NIC's background check.
For someone to think that this is a fundraiser for the GOA is ludicrous, again, IMHO.
You are correct in your assessment of some of the posters on this site. They see that GOA is the post and they automatically dismiss it as a fund raiser (even though they never ask for money in the alerts). It seems to me that they think the NRA can do no wrong. I wonder if these same people feel same about Republicans as they do about the NRA?
The legislation apparently passed the House of Representatives by voice vote. As far as it goes, the NRA has sold out to the Washington political process and has turned into a gun rights equivalent to a RINO organization. The Gun Owners of America is the real deal, as is the Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership. However, it would still be a good idea to contact your Congressman, especially the purported conservatives, to express your displeasure at this legislation, passed by the dirty trick of a voice vote.
In your list of guns rights organization, you forgot one!
However, the ATF, FBI and gun grabbers have shown no credibility in scrubbing these lists. Because of this, I don’t want the federal government to be in charge of deciding who’s crazy and I don’t want them to be in charge of scrubbing these lists.
Because of their intransigence, we also have to be a bulwark on this issue.
One more thing,
While Bush has disappointed in many areas, he has not disappointed in the second amendment area. Let’s hope he would veteo this (though I think he did indicate he might sign it into law)
Do we have enough senators to fillibuster this? Let’s hope so...
Every time the NRA reaches a “deal” with Congress, gun owners get shafted.
I’d like to know why, every single time a bill related to guns goes through Congress, gun owners get shafted in some way - but it never goes OUR way. For instance, couldn’t some Congressman JUST ONCE insert a provision to repeal Title 18, Section 922(o) into a “must pass” bill? Or maybe something to remove the odious “sporting purposes” clause from the ‘68 GCA, or to go back to $30 Class 1 dealer fees with NO examination of compliance with local zoning ordinances by the ATF, or allowing the DoD to sell components from ALL small arms ammo to the public? Hmmmm, what about that? Why can’t OUR people use legislative tricks and lie like the other SOBs?
I don’t think that severely mentally ill people should have guns either, but then I don’t think they sould be released into the general population also. If they are safe enough to be a part of the population, drive cars, etc. then they should be viewed as safe enough to have a gun. Same goes for criminals.
I can’t share the same view of him, due to the fact that he has not been presented a whole lot of gun bills (thanks to our Congress), his promise to sign an “AWB” if presented to him (I know we were told he said it just to get votes, but that would make him a panderer) and his lack of vetos (which should have been many).
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.