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

Skip to comments.

Another Federal Gun Law Planned ("law is expected to add at least 21 million records to the NICS")
gunlaws.com ^ | June 15, 2007 | Alan Korwin

Posted on 08/14/2007 6:03:58 PM PDT by neverdem

Another Federal Gun Law Planned

This one expands the rights-denial list in NICS

HR 2640 motivated by psychopathic murderer

Calls for more "gun control" grow louder
No calls for gun-safety training or expanded carry rights can be heard

Dept. of Homeland Security to contribute to NICS database





GUN LAW UPDATE
June 15, 2007

 

NEW FEDERAL GUN LAW COMING
NEW FEDERAL GUN LAW COMING
NEW FEDERAL GUN LAW COMING

 

Dept. of Homeland Security to join in NICS database
Dept. of Homeland Security to join in NICS database

 

Rights restorations promised but fuzzy

 

by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America

Permission to circulate granted

 

The House of Representatives, with unusual backing from both the NRA and anti-gun activists in the Democrat party, just passed HR 2640 on an unrecorded voice vote. The "NICS Improvement Act" will greatly expand the list of people banned from buying or having firearms, and now goes to the Senate where it will likely be fast-tracked for approval.

Using "gun control" and murdered young students as a rallying cry, the federal government has moved another step closer to a national computerized system capable of screening the entire population.

If tied in to a national ID card being developed through linked state driver's licenses (the so-called "Real ID Act" passed in 2005), all significant activity in the nation could be monitored under the guise of crime control.

In typical fashion, the bill coerces states into cooperation with promises of grants and threats of withheld funding, depending on their degree of compliance. It is unlikely that states will be able to afford to resist, compromising any remaining sovereignty they have. The net effect will be to hasten centralized...

(Excerpt) Read more at gunlaws.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; communistgoals; healthypeople2010; hr2640

1 posted on 08/14/2007 6:04:02 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
Michael Yon: Three Marks on the Horizon

The Left's Lust for Revolutionary Transformation

HR 2640: Sensible Solution or Trojan Horse?

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

2 posted on 08/14/2007 6:18:47 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

For every new gun law enacted, two existing ones should have to be repealed.


3 posted on 08/14/2007 6:28:38 PM PDT by GnL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

BUMP-—>time for action!

(are democrats really this stupid?!)


4 posted on 08/14/2007 6:44:47 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GnL

I have absolutely no problem with those judged mentally incompetent being barred from owning handguns.


5 posted on 08/14/2007 6:45:20 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

time to permanently outsmart the dems. put them out of their misery.


6 posted on 08/14/2007 6:45:57 PM PDT by television is just wrong (deport all illegal aliens NOW. Put all AMERICANS TO WORK FIRST. END WELFARE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

time to permanently outsmart the dems. put them out of their misery.


7 posted on 08/14/2007 6:46:04 PM PDT by television is just wrong (deport all illegal aliens NOW. Put all AMERICANS TO WORK FIRST. END WELFARE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The House of Representatives, with unusual backing from both the NRA and anti-gun activists in the Democrat party, just passed HR 2640 on an unrecorded voice vote.

Cowards.

8 posted on 08/14/2007 6:50:10 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

In theory I don’t either. What I do have a problem with is knee-jerk legislation designed to appease the very vocal gun grabbers who would love to see us continue to slide down the slippery slope (and if you don’t think we are on that slope, better think again). Gun control has nothing to do with crime.


9 posted on 08/14/2007 6:53:37 PM PDT by GnL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

“I have absolutely no problem with those judged mentally incompetent being barred from owning handguns.”

That’s how they get you with their “reasonable” gun regulations. How will you feel when an unelected judge or Government employee decides, in secret, that you might pose a risk to society and takes away your rights to even possess a gun — and you find yourself not only lacking a root to appeal, but even the right to know who decided you are incompetent to possess a weapon?

That is what this new legislation permits.

When the left calls it “reasonable” you can bet you’re about to get screwed.


10 posted on 08/14/2007 6:57:01 PM PDT by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vetsvette
I’m a NRA Life Member, so I won’t support any legislation that usurps an ordinary citizen’s RKBA. Nut cases, like we had in W. VA. are another thing entirely, cause damage to the rest of us and damage the potential support we could have from those who do not own firearms.
11 posted on 08/14/2007 7:04:46 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Seems to me that, if we'd just EXECUTE rapists, thieves and murderers, WE WOULDN'T NEED A LIST AT ALL, now would we?
12 posted on 08/14/2007 7:15:46 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

So what is an “ordinary” citizen? Who gets to decide?

The problem with this legislation is that thew devil is in the details. Let’s say you are depressed as a teenegaer and get put on the list. Now you are barred for life becuase no doctor will ever let you off the list - why would a doctor take a chance on clearing you?


13 posted on 08/14/2007 7:18:11 PM PDT by Radio_Silence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Eric, although I have obviously not read the text of the bill, what I have read indicates to me that the additions to the NICS database do not necessarily have to be cases where the individual has been adjudicated as incompetent.

It sounds like it may very well include anyone that has ever sought psychiatric help for something as benign as depression after the loss of a loved one.

Of course, no one wants guns in the hands of psychotics or other severely disturbed people, but this could be VERY dangerous new territory!

The devils in the details, just like in the CIR bill.

On the surface it sounded reasonable: when actually read, it was appalling.


14 posted on 08/14/2007 7:23:40 PM PDT by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
I have absolutely no problem with those judged mentally incompetent being barred from owning handguns.

In theory this is a good idea, but remember it is a government employee who determines your sanity. This will be really easy to abuse.

15 posted on 08/14/2007 7:34:10 PM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

All you need is a anti-gun shrink to say you’re unfit to carry a gun and all yours are gone.

Don’t think this is exactly what they are going to do with this.

“Oh, you don’t like shrinks, sir? Why not? That’s a little paranoid, don’t you think?”

You bet your can there will be people losing guns who are not mentally unstable. They will paint you as one. How do you refute it? If you’re not a qualified professional shrink, who’s word is going win?


16 posted on 08/14/2007 8:08:41 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

We’re so much better than the old Soviet Union, and from recent reports the New Russia. We will only violate your rights and take away your guns, they put you away, as “mentally incompetent”, for opposing the “correct thinking” of the Party, whichever Party it might be.


17 posted on 08/14/2007 8:21:58 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

1. The leftists and mainstream media have been unusually quiet for the last two major public shootings (VA Tech and the church shooting last week). Their normal modus operandi is to use incidents like these to trumpet ‘reasonable gun control’. Oddly, there have been no dem/handgun control press conferences demanding new laws. That should make one pause and wonder why the quiet response - but respond they will. They realize from the past couple elections that ‘gun control’ is NOT a winning issue. They will try to take advantage of the situation legislatively or through government fiat (read: regulations).

2. Don’t support a regulation or law just because you have faith (diminishing though it may be) that the current administration and executive branch appointees will safeguard your rights. Imagine the worst case that Hillary! or another marxist will someday wield those powers and ask yourself you are willing to sacrifice your God given rights to a communist authority.

3. At some point, you may be considered by the powers-that-be as crazy if you aren’t a card carrying member of Code Pink, Moveon.org, NAMBLA, or some like organization. “If you don’t support our agenda, you must be insane!” and therefore declared too unstable to possess weapons.

Food for thought.
Kit.


18 posted on 08/14/2007 8:25:11 PM PDT by KitJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
All you need is a anti-gun shrink to say you’re unfit to carry a gun and all yours are gone.

It'll probably be Judge, rather than a shrink. But they can be just as anti arms rights. After all, just owning a gun shows paranoid tendencies, yes? Add to that opposition to the latest Big Brother scheme to transfer your hard earned dollars to those who didn't earn them, and well, you're clearly delusional and danger to others, namely the judge and the parasite class.

19 posted on 08/14/2007 8:25:27 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

It may be right it will be a judge but is he going to give more weight to you or the shrink? There are also a lot of anti-gun judges? Think they want to take the chance of letting a nutball keep a gun and be haunted by that guy going on a shooting spree? Nope the safer course of action is to take yours away.


20 posted on 08/14/2007 8:30:00 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

The problem is how do you define “mentally incompetent?” This government will you that loop hole to ban 99% of the public. And should one minor bout of depression cause you to loose ALL your Continual rights?


21 posted on 08/14/2007 8:34:14 PM PDT by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bit off topic but did Smith and Wesson ever renounce their agreement with Clintoon back in 2000? Is there still an ongoing boycott of S+M products?


22 posted on 08/14/2007 9:10:39 PM PDT by KantianBurke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KitJ
Imagine the worst case that Hillary! or another marxist will someday wield those powers

The way things are looking now the chances of the next President being as arms rights friendly as the current one, such as he is, are slim and fading. All of the 'Rat cannidates are gun grabber, and about half the Pubbie ones have that in their record as well.

Even the Great White Hope, Fred Thompson, is squishy at best, probably about like the Presidents Bush, maybe a bit more like the son than the father (Governor Bush signed Texas' CHL law, just as he promised he would, but he also promised that as President, he would sign an extension of the Ugly Gun Ban). Mitt and Rudy are both old gun grabbers. Hunter is solid on the Second, as is Huckabee. If Gingrich steps in (unlikely, IMHO, but you never know until the fat lady sings), he's also solid, having rammed a repeal of the UGB through the House, only to have the RINO Senate sit on it.

23 posted on 08/14/2007 9:14:14 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
I have absolutely no problem with those judged mentally incompetent being barred from owning handguns.

I agree. I also have no problem with those to be judged intoxicated being barred from driving. I have no problem with those to be judged XXXX being barred from XXXX.

My problem exists in the Enforcement and meaning being the words.

What does Mentally Incompetent mean? Not what the dictionary says, or what you think it means, but in terms of the Legislation.

Say you get a Clear Cut Definition you are happy with. The legislation is enacted and becomes law. And now that it is In it's a relatively Easy process to Add things to the list of what is deemed Mentally Incompetent (MI). And to change the length of time a person can be deemed MI.

It might start out as: MI is decided after Independent Review by three Independent Qualified (define qualified) Persons. All three must agree. Their finding can be reviewed after 12 months.

Then it changes to Two independent people and a review after 24 months.

Then it changes to "Anything on the list" as diagnosed/determined by One person (Govt employee) and carries a Minimum 5 year ban.

Then what is on the list changes to ensnare More people and carries a 10 year ban.

Then the list changes again to ensnare even more people and carries a 20 year ban.

And you get the idea.

Once a List has been created, any dope is able to enforce the list and you cannot argue because it's on the list. And that's policy.

And to insure our mental competence, all school records will be reviewed (that fight in the 5th grade could mean you have violent tendencies and aren't mentally competent to be given access to a firearm) and workplace psychological profiles. And even then, you may need to be put through an Evaluation before being issued a Firearm License.

See how it can go.

In Australia they have ACTS of Parliament. This provides the overall rules. The Legislation provides the details. So an ACT might say an infringement is punishable by the paying of 20 units. The legislation, which can be changed without consultation by whomever is in power, determines how much a Unit is worth in today's terms.

So the ACT would say a person may not possess a firearm for X years when judged Mentally Incompetent. The legislation defines how many years X is and what is meant by Mentally Incompetent. The ACT requires consultation with all parties in the house and senate. The legislation does not.

But regardless of all this... if a nutbag wants to get a gun and go on a rampage, they will find a way. And once again, the honest citizen is punished in a so-called effort to get bad guys who ignore the rules anyway. And the scary thought... the politicians behind it know this and do it anyway. What's that tell you about them?

24 posted on 08/14/2007 9:53:51 PM PDT by Fluke Codewriter (Right is right, even if no-one is doing it. Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


25 posted on 08/14/2007 10:07:12 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
Bit off topic but did Smith and Wesson ever renounce their agreement with Clintoon back in 2000? Is there still an ongoing boycott of S+M products?

When did they ban S+M products? IIRC, new owners took over Smith and Wesson, and that agreement is kaput.

26 posted on 08/14/2007 10:08:38 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I think it was something of an unofficial gun buying boycott by gun owners in response to the company’s actions. Am somewhat fuzzy as to the details and am unaware that the agreement was rescinded. Am planning on purchasing a hand gun for personal defense hence my curiosity.


27 posted on 08/14/2007 10:10:50 PM PDT by KantianBurke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/business/11guns.html?ex=1302408000&en=b6fe4ae5735570f1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

S&W story from last year


28 posted on 08/14/2007 10:31:27 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the link! Somewhat ambiguous as to what the company’s policies are with regards to the 2000 agreement. Will continue to look for more info.


29 posted on 08/14/2007 11:02:42 PM PDT by KantianBurke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Fluke Codewriter

Fluke,
Well said. Kudos. We could go on and on...


30 posted on 08/14/2007 11:20:34 PM PDT by KitJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
Is there still an ongoing boycott of S+M products?


I don't know about S+M products - I'm not aware of any ban on those...

S&W on the other hand, was boycotted for a period of some years while they negotiated with anti-gun xlintons, and were owned by a Brit consortium of anti-gunners.

Several years ago, they were bought by a group of former, patriotic S&W employees and have since turned around and are a company I'd buy products from.

Kit.

31 posted on 08/14/2007 11:24:43 PM PDT by KitJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
I don't think "all it would take is an anti-gun shrink..."
There is more than sufficient protection in law against this.
32 posted on 08/15/2007 5:38:09 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Let’s just be sure there isn’t any racial profiling going on... /sarc


33 posted on 08/15/2007 9:49:23 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Tuesday, August 14, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

The NRA seems to be supporting this legislation despite the fact that it usurps due process rights of individual gun owners. I have no idea why — perhaps they think it can be fixed before it’s passed. But, as written, it’s unacceptable.


34 posted on 08/15/2007 11:01:11 AM PDT by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GnL

they should repeal every law passed since 1935,and pass 1 more law making it aganist the law to pass any more laws.


35 posted on 08/15/2007 11:03:02 AM PDT by old gringo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
"I’m a NRA Life Member..."

So am I (Endowment level), and I do not support HR 2640.

Some of us believe NRA's Washington lobbyists have become entirely too friendly with their natural enemies in Washington--Congress and its staffs. When you attend the same parties and rub elbows in the same social environment, it becomes far easier to justify a "go along to get along" attitude when asked to support a bad bill that has been dressed up to look "reasonable".

This isn't the first time the NRA has found itself on the wrong side of a piece of flawed legislation. On this one, I'm very disappointed in the NRA. The GOA saw it for what it is.

36 posted on 08/15/2007 11:13:47 AM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Czar

No less than Bill Clinton credited NRA with Algore’s loss. He might still be president.


37 posted on 08/15/2007 5:18:25 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
"No less than Bill Clinton credited NRA with Algore’s loss."

Something for which we shall always be grateful. But that doesn't mean they're perfect or beyond criticism when they blow one. And they blew it on HR 2640.

38 posted on 08/15/2007 5:24:55 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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