Posted on 09/05/2007 3:59:47 PM PDT by processing please hold
I have heard, maybe an Urban Legend, that the VA will notify the BATF if a veteran says he is depressed. At first I blew it off as B/S, but when my VA doc asked me if I was "depressed", alarm bells went off.
similar body
What is a similar body when it comes to courts?
Don't tell that to some on here, they don't believe it.
When our membership dues comes up, I think we'll let it slide.
All this GOA hyperbole is going to end up hurting our gun rights more than it helps.
Supercat asks an easy question:
Which group was more accurately descriptive of the 1996 Lautenberg Abomination before or after its passage? GOA or NRA?
tcostell, unable to answer:
Look,... in terms of what they've actually accomplished the GOA can't hold a candle to the NRA. And in this specific case they are way over the top in terms of their exaggeration of what the bill actually does and doesn't do, and that allows our enemies to depict us as a bunch of lying idiots.
Can you post the exaggerations that make the GOA a bunch of lying idiots? -- I'd bet not.
We're on the same side here, but I honestly don't think they are helping.
People like you on 'our side' explains a lot about why we have lost many of our gun rights since 1968.
I agree.
Little comfort to those that are 'wrongly listed'. This is backasswards. The overreach is what should require someone to seek restoration.
I would agree that there is probably no way any even remotely reasonable interpretation of the bill would be as bad as what the GOA is describing, but I have observed over the years that it is very unwise to expect the government to interpret laws in even remotely reasonable fashion.
If the provisions for putting people on the "prohibited" list are pushed as hard as possible so as to add as many people as possible, while the government does all it can to ignore the provisions for appealing such placement, would you still think it a good law? Particularly if the government didn't feel limited by what the statute actually said?
I don't care what the bill actually says. What matters is what the government is going to pretend that it says. And experience tells me that while the GOA's predictions on such things may sometimes seem pretty far 'out there', the government's actions are often even more so.
CCW laws, Castle Doctine, Manufacturer’s Protection Act, the 2000 elections, the Katrina lawsuits.
What was the GOA doing while the NRA was getting things done?
Don’t let the door......
The GOA: It can’t do anything and it still blames the NRA.
Pathetic.
Is it purely coincidence that the Lautenberg Abomination was passed a few weeks before an election, but shortly after the NRA's message that if a politician was sufficiently anti-gun people should support the opponent whether or not he was much better?
We have over 20,000 gun laws on the books in this country today, and not a single one will prevent the next crime of murder, robbery or rape.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1763392/posts?page=55#55
Link please because it’s late and I have no idea what you just wrote.
I will ask this in the meantime. If the GOA is so good, why couldn’t they stop this Lautenberg Abomination? For that matter, why can’t they do anything?
If the NRA is so good, why can’t they use their influence to get Congress to repeal some of the bad laws on the books. Why haven’t they pushed Congress to go after the BATFE who are absolutely out of freaking control? (see US v. Kwan or US v. Wrenn, or US v. Glover...)
The NRA has actively stopped Congressional investigations into the abuses of the BATFE (see nfaoa.org for further information or do a search for the Congressional Research Service work on the BATFE from 2005 and 2006.)
Why has the NRA stopped or attempted to stop any pro-gun legislation or legal cases from suceeding?
The NRA is soft on the gun issue and they have sold us out. The NRA is a professional lobbying group concerned with lining their pockets more than making headway on gun rights (see the comments by the former Texas Ranger that is on the NRA board of directors. Sorry, I disremember his name but the audio of his comments are on the web.)
If you support the NRA and support the 2nd Amendment, you better start asking some hard questions of the NRA leadership.
Mike
Let’s look at our British cousins for the very reasons that the assault on individual ownership of firearms is as wrong as it gets. I don’t know when they did it but, for the sake of argument, let’s say that 10 years ago, the British government banned private ownership of guns. Since that time, the number of gun crimes in Britain has skyrocketed because criminals (AKA “outlaws”) DON’T obey the law (Give me a “Duh!!”). To add insult to injury, the British government also thought it would be a smart move to bring charges against those who try to defend themselves, their families or their property from thieves!!! IOW, this is the ultimate weeny capitulation to the law breakers.
The result is that the law breakers are winning and the law abiding people are losing . . . . . . . . in SPADES!!!!! Britain, this year, has reported the largest exodus of citizens at any time in recent history. Between Islamofascists and law breakers, the average Brit has no chance of winning this ideological battle.
So, they’re headed elsewhere.
The left in the US know that as soon as they win the battle over private gun ownership, we lose the balance of power and they can do what they want to force their view of government control/ownership of everything upon us. As long as there is a balance of power between the weapons the government owns and the weapons the citizens owns, the left still has to accommodate the demands of the people. If we ever lose this battle with the left, America is lost forever, and we will be joining those ex-pat Brits looking for someplace else to live where sanity is not the exception to the rule.
Try this:
"These anti-gun legislators have teamed up to introduce a bill that will expand the 1993 Brady Law and disarm hundreds of thousands of combat veterans -- and other Americans."
The fact is, that the Brady law isn't expanded at all. This law will do 2 things. It will require that all records any State has, that concern fed, or state disqualifiers, must be forwarded for inclusion into the database. It would simply change voluntary forwarding, to must forward.
The second thing this law would do, is to require a remedy to remove entries in the database that are no longer relevant, or accurate. That does not exist now, and is a good thing.
As to disarming vets, that's bogus. It was tried and didn't fly. It crashed and burned. See tcostell's #18. The "other Americans" that GOA mentions will be disarmed are those mental cases that are not now in the database. Yes, they are Americans, but they have been adjuducated a danger to themselves, and/or others, by reason of mental defect. Mental defect such as paranoid schiz, or some other debilitating psychosis. That could include advanced alzheimers, where the patient doesn't recognize their own spouse pf 40 years and mistakes them for home invaders.
Had this law been in effect and VA was required to submit records, instead of asked to do so voluntarily, Cho, the paranoid schizophrenic, would have never been able to buy guns and ammo. That would have been a good thing.
Lautenberg is irrelevant here. It is a separate law.
Let's look at this BS gem from GOA.
"Relying on a DETERMINATION is broader than just relying on a court "ruling," and the words OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY are not limited to judges. In other words, the definition above would allow a VA psychologist or a school shrink to take away your gun rights."
This is pure BS. IOWs it's a flat out lie. Lawful authority refers to a court, or the equivalent of a court, not anyone else, or any other collection of persons. That's, because no other person, or bodies has any such authority to make a legal determination regarding any citizen's fitness, that includes shrinks and wannabees.
Here's another one:
"Does the bill really make it easier to get your gun rights restored -- even after spending lots of time and money in court? Well, that's VERY debatable..."
Plain BS. The bill makes no claims regarding ease, it simply requires that a remedy be made available. The way it is now, that is not the case and some are SOL, because of that.
"In brief, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill."
Ridiculous. The remedy provided for in McClure-Volkmer was not required, and it refered to felony convictions, where attainder applied. The establishment of remedy in this case is a requirement that must be established and perpetually open and effective for the stated purpose.
The NRA only has four million members out of eighty million gun owners. They don’t manufacture votes in the Senate or the Congress. The liberal AARP has something like triple those numbers.
The liberal anti-gun politicians blame the NRA for the lack of gun control. They don’t know the other gun groups even exist.
If the NRA had forty million members, gun control wouldn’t exist. It’s people like you sitting on the sidelines that are the problem.
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.