Posted on 09/05/2007 3:59:47 PM PDT by processing please hold
Patrick Henry had it right. Forget the past, and you're destined to make the same mistakes in the future.
Gun control has been an absolute failure. Whether it's a total gun ban or mere background checks, gun control has FAILED to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
But gun control fanatics still want to redouble their efforts, even when their endeavors have not worked. Congress is full of fanatics who want to expand the failed Brady Law to such an extent that millions of law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to own or buy guns.
For months, GOA has been warning gun owners about the McCarthy-Leahy bill -- named after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). 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. (While McCarthy and Leahy are this year's primary sponsors, the notorious Senator Chuck Schumer of New York was a sponsor of this legislation in years past.)
Proponents of the bill tell us that it will bring relief for many gun owners. But to swallow this, one must first ignore the fact that gun owners would NOT NEED RELIEF in the first place if some gun owners (and gun groups) had not thrown their support behind the Brady bill that passed in 1993 and were not pushing the Veterans Disarmament Bill now.
Law-abiding Americans need relief because we were sold a bill of goods in 1993. The Brady Law has allowed government bureaucrats to screen law-abiding citizens before they exercise their constitutionally protected rights -- and that has opened the door to all kinds of abuses.
The McCarthy-Leahy bill will open the door to many more abuses. After all, do we really think that notorious anti-gunners like McCarthy and Leahy had the best interests of gun owners in mind when they introduced this Veterans Disarmament Bill? The question answers itself.
TRADE-OFF TO HURT GUN OWNERS
Proponents want us to think this measure will benefit many gun owners. But what sort of trade off is it to create potentially millions of new prohibited persons -- under this legislation -- and then tell them that they need to spend thousands of dollars to regain the rights THAT WERE NOT THREATENED before this bill was passed?
Do you see the irony? Gun control gets passed. The laws don't stop criminals from getting guns, but they invariably affect law-abiding folks. So instead of repealing the dumb laws, the fanatics argue that we need even more gun control (like the Veterans Disarmament Bill) to fix the problem!!!
So more people lose their rights, even while they're promised a very limited recourse for restoring those rights -- rights which they never would lose, save for the McCarthy-Leahy bill.
The legislation threatens to disqualify millions of new gun owners who are not a threat to society. If this bill is signed into law:
* As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms -- based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder;
* Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance);
* Your kid could be permanently banned from owning a gun, based on a diagnosis under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Patrick Henry said he knew of "no way of judging of the future but by the past." The past has taught us that gun control fanatics and bureaucrats are continually looking for loopholes in the law to deny guns to as many people as possible.
GUN CONTROL'S ABOMINABLE RECORD
A government report in 1996 found that the Brady Law had prevented a significant number of Americans from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets and errors. The General Accounting Office said that more than 50% of denials under the Brady Law were for administrative snafus, traffic violations, or reasons other than felony convictions.
Press reports over the years have also shown gun owners inconvenienced by NICS computer system crashes -- especially when those crashes happen on the weekends (affecting gun shows).
Right now, gun owners in Pennsylvania are justifiably up in arms because the police scheduled a routine maintenance (and shut-down) of their state computer system on the opening days of hunting season this year. The shut-down, by the way, has taken three days -- which is illegal.
And then there's the BATFE’s dastardly conduct in the state of Wyoming. The anti-gun agency took the state to court after legislators figured out a way to restore people's ability to buy firearms -- people who had been disarmed by the Lautenberg gun ban of 1996.
Gun Owners Foundation has been involved in this Wyoming case, and has seen up close how the BATFE has TOTALLY DISREGARDED a Supreme Court opinion which allows this state to do what they did. In Caron v. United States (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court said that any conviction which has been set aside or expunged at the state level "shall not be considered a conviction," under federal law, for the purposes of owning or buying guns. But the BATFE has ignored this Court ruling, and is bent on preventing states like Wyoming from restoring people's gun rights.
Not surprisingly, the BATFE has issued new 4473s which ASSUME the McCarthy-Leahy bill has already passed. The bill has not even been enacted into law yet, and the BATFE is already using the provisions of that bill to keep more people from buying guns.
The new language on the 4473 form asks:
Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs)....
Notice the words "determination" and "other lawful authority." 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 what McCarthy and Leahy are trying to accomplish, but the BATFE has now been emboldened to go ahead and do it anyway. This means that military vets could potentially commit a felony by buying a gun WITHOUT disclosing that they have Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome because a "lawful authority" has decreed that they are a potential danger to themselves or others.
No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to the McCarthy-Leahy bill. On June 18 of this year, the group stated, "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
MORE RESTRICTIONS, NOT RELIEF
Supporters, like the NRA, say that they were able to win compromises from the Dark Side -- compromises that will benefit gun owners. 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, and GOA has grappled this question in a very lengthy piece entitled, Point-by-Point Response to Proponents of HR 2640.
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.
Incidentally, even before Schumer blocked the procedure, the ability to get "relief from disabilities" under section 925(c) was always an expensive long shot. Presumably, the new procedures in the Veterans Disarmament Act will be the same.
Isn't that always the record from Washington? You compromise with the devil and then get lots of bad, but very little good. Look at the immigration debate. Compromises over the last two decades have provided amnesty for illegal aliens, while promising border security. The country got lots of the former, but very little of the latter.
If the Veterans Disarmament Bill passes, don't hold your breath waiting for the promised relief.
ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Senator. You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center (where phone and fax numbers are also available).
The NRA has less than 4 million members presently, but let’s compare that to the less than 250,000 members of ALL of the anti gun groups combined.
How do the anti’s get stuff through Congress? Why can’t the NRA exert pressure like the anti’s do? With their higher numbers, one would think that if they applied some pressure, they could get most gun control crap removed from the books. Why don’t they at least TRY?
Mike
Explain “no” if ya have time........thanks !
Darn, Once again, The only people who will abide by these laws are the honest citizens. Criminals will just ignore them. Who will these laws benefit?.
What the hell are you talking about? It's a background check. Explain how an instant background check infringes on a compitent, law abiding citizen's rights.
" Criminals will just ignore them.
Wrong. Criminals and psychopaths will have to face them and realize that competent law abiding citizens won't allow them access to tools they would use to create havoc, destruction, and otherwise pray on competent law abiding folks. It takes an idiot to work hard to defend their ability to do so. GOA comes to mind.
" Who will these laws benefit?."
Folks that cherish freedom, rights and life.
In California, background checks thru a licensed dealer are mandatory. It is a crime to give/transfer a gun to anyone without this infringement/tyranny.
"we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'the law' to others." -- As you see above.
Yah, forgot to mention the infinitely dense imbeciles that insist gross negligence in the form of allowing psychopaths to possess and purchase guns is justified, because somehow it's their inalienable right to do so.
You contest our inalienable rights to purchase, own, carry and trade in arms? -- That could be found to be an indicator of psychopathic behavior in my community. -- Do we have the power to deny you arms using that 'reasoning'?
-- I think not, but a psychopath will no doubt argue otherwise, -- correct?
People won't be able to purchase weapons except in the commercial market, -- that's the point of these laws.
Ridiculous. All laws are not the same and this one is specific regarding incompetents only.
We contest your using/assuming an undelegated power, -- to determine who is competent to own arms..
< Congress has the right to regulate inteerstate commerce and they've chosen to deny access to this particular commerce to dangerous mental cases.
Made up bull. -- Congressional power to regulate commerce among the several states does not include the power to prohibit/infringe upon arms trading.
It does not in any way infringe on a competent person's rights at all.
You're simply in denial. Declaring a person incompetent to own "dangerous items" is clearly an infringement on life and liberty. -- Thus -- Due process must be used. -- Nothing less than a full jury trial, imo.
Waiting in the wings is making it a 'crime' to buy or sell ammo except through a licensed dealer. - Total control at the "stroke of a pen".
Nebulous hyperbole
Its the obvious next step for California's 'moral majority prohibiting evil guns'.
"In California, background checks thru a licensed dealer are mandatory. It is a crime to give/transfer a gun to anyone without this infringement/tyranny."
You didn't answer the question. You simply made a claim that it was.
Re: Yah, forgot to mention the infinitely dense imbeciles that insist gross negligence in the form of allowing psychopaths to possess and purchase guns is justified, because somehow it's their inalienable right to do so.
" You contest our inalienable rights to purchase, own, carry and trade in arms? -- That could be found to be an indicator of psychopathic behavior in my community. -- Do we have the power to deny you arms using that 'reasoning'?
Our inalienable right to own guns? Your community? I was talking about psychotics. That's the topic here. it's obvious that GOA thinks psychotics should have free unobstructed access to guns. Is that what your community holds also.
"-- I think not, but a psychopath will no doubt argue otherwise, -- correct?"
Psychopaths are not rational and I don't recognize their right to possess guns. They have a right to seek treatment for their condition, not a right to own guns. With regard to this law, they forfeited the right when they were hauled in front of the judge for criminal behavior and displayed evidence that their criminal behavior was due to mental defect.
It’s none of government’s business WHO owns WHAT weaponry? How’s that for a start?
“...[S]hall not be infringed” means just that... and there is but ONE legitimate requirement that [only] local governments may impose: One may not discharge a weapon in certain areas and places at certain times or under certain conditions except in an emergency. That’s it and that’s all. NOTHING else passes Constitutional muster. Not registration. Not background checks. Not confiscation. Not ANYTHING else. NFA, GCA ‘68, all of it... totally unconstitutional and all supported, IIRC, by your NRA... which has yet to meet a gun RIGHT it’s not willing to compromise away.
It has the right to exclude those incompetent due to mental defect and those effected by attainder, both having proved themselves irresponsible, in one case by their own volition, nad in the other, by reason of mental defect.
We do try. It’s the 76 million gun owners sitting on the sidelines who never try.
We... LOL! My power doesn't depend on being delegated by anyone. My power is the rational mind I was born with. That same power is the foundaiton for the idea that folks can be free and operate as rational agents. It's was the felon's own power and will that determined their inelligibility and unworthiness to be recognized as a free ordinary citizen, since they chose to violate the rights of others to further their own ends. In the case of mental defect, it's either inherent, caused, uncured, or cured. W/o cure, they are not rational agents. If cured, provisions for the restoration of their rights are provided by this bill.
Agreed. For years, the GOA flooded my mailbox and email inbox with stories of the latest boogeyman determined to kick down my door and forcibly disarm me. I bought hi-cap magazines and assault weapons while the so-called Assault Weapons Ban was in effect. GOA won't get my dollars.
Have a look at post #18.
I asked how it is, that an instant background check violates rights. You did not answer the question. Instead you made a false statement. The only fundamental justification for govm't is to protect rights. Those convicted of felonies have forfeited their rights by their own volition. Those with mental defect, that are a danger to themselves, or others are incapable of even recognizing the rights of their fellows, so they can not possibly be expected to do so. Therefore, in order to protect the rights of citizens in general, from these people, they are justified in placing special limitations on them, that do not apply to citizens in general.
"“...[S]hall not be infringed” means just that... and there is but ONE legitimate requirement that [only] local governments may impose: One may not discharge a weapon in certain areas and places at certain times or under certain conditions except in an emergency. That’s it and that’s all. NOTHING else passes Constitutional muster.
ridiculous, as I just explained. The 2nd Amend does not apply to felons and those adjudicated a danger to themselves, or others due to mental defect.
"Not background checks."
Still haven't seen your explanation how an instant background check is a violation of one's rights.
"your NRA... which has yet to meet a gun RIGHT it’s not willing to compromise away."
Ridiculous. The NRA has no power to compromise anyone's rights. Only the govm't has such power. I think all this bad mouthing of the NRA amounts to is, because they've got a firm grasp of reality, are thus real and refuse to go absurd like GOA.
In California, background checks thru a licensed dealer are mandatory. It is a crime to give/transfer a gun to anyone without this infringement/tyranny.
You didn't answer the question. You simply made a claim that it was.
Picky picky wordplay. - Infringements are tyranny.
You contest our inalienable rights to purchase, own, carry and trade in arms? -- That could be found to be an indicator of psychopathic behavior in my community. -- Do we have the power to deny you arms using that 'reasoning'?
-- I think not, but a psychopath will no doubt argue otherwise, -- correct?
I was talking about psychotics. That's the topic here. it's obvious that GOA thinks psychotics should have free unobstructed access to guns. Is that what your community holds also.
You didn't answer the question. Must mean that you contest our inalienable rights to purchase, own, carry and trade in arms -- and that is an indicator of psychopathic behavior.
Psychopaths are not rational and I don't recognize their right to possess guns.
Psychopaths are not rational and do not recognize our right to possess guns.
With regard to this law, they forfeited the right when they were hauled in front of the judge for criminal behavior and displayed evidence that their criminal behavior was due to mental defect.
Good grief, are you now advocating mere indictment, being "hauled in front of the judge" as grounds for forfeiture? -- Due process anyone?
People won't be able to purchase weapons except in the commercial market, -- that's the point of these laws.
Ridiculous. All laws are not the same and this one is specific regarding incompetents only.
We contest your using/assuming an undelegated power, -- to determine who is competent to own arms..
< Congress has the right to regulate inteerstate commerce and they've chosen to deny access to this particular commerce to dangerous mental cases.
Made up bull. -- Congressional power to regulate commerce among the several states does not include the power to prohibit/infringe upon arms trading.
It has the right to exclude those incompetent due to mental defect and those effected by attainder,
More made up legalistic 'bull'. Congress is simply not delegated such powers.
both having proved themselves irresponsible, in one case by their own volition, nad in the other, by reason of mental defect.
Babble on, -- you're sounding desperate.
It [a congressional finding, a decree] does not in any way infringe on a competent person's rights at all.
You're simply in denial. Declaring a person incompetent to own "dangerous items" is clearly an infringement on life and liberty. -- Thus -- Due process must be used. -- Nothing less than a full jury trial, imo.
? The question was, "how does an instant background check infringe on anyone's rights?"
"I thought being innocent till proven guilty was a right."
I guessed you missed it. The database this law refers to is a collection of the guilty. It does not contain, the innocent, or those that have been simply accused, except for temp restraining orders, bit that's another matter.
Thanks for yer time ..... Stay safe !
Still no substance, and you're repeating yourself.
You too.
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.